Landowner Tag Debate

P

Prism

Guest
Why are landowner tags in Colorado such a touchy subject with some hunters?

Arizona is about the only state I know of that does not have a landowner tag system of some sort.

New Mexico, Idaho, Utah, and Nevada have a landowner tag system that allows the tag holder to hunt the entire unit, including public land. Nevada allows you to buy as many landowner tags as you want or can afford.

Perhaps some of the hunters upset about it now were getting tags for nothing before the rest of the world caught onto them, and now they're not willing to pay to play.

What do you think???
 
Prism,
The problem that I have with it is that it is furthering the movement to turn our sport into an "rich man" sport.

In Colorado this program was originally developed so that farmers and ranchers would be able to hunt their land and be able to provide for their families without having to draw a license. This is still beneficial to the landowners, since applying for a draw tag within their area may take up to 13 years. However, in recent years, the State Statute has been exploited without regard for the purpose of the program. Some greedy individuals have found that the landowner vouchers serve as a loophole, and are abusing it to the fullest extent. Without a limited number of people that the voucher can be transferred to, there is now an entire underground economy based on buying and re-selling these vouchers to the highest bidders. Most of the exploitation of this loophole is being done by outfitters and voucher brokers, most of which don't even live in the state of Colorado. These vouchers in several units around the state are now commonly bringing upwards of $10,000.00 or more to the seller.

What makes these vouchers so precious is the fact that they are unit wide tags, meaning that even though they are issued to a landowner for the land that he owns, they do not have to be used on private land only. This makes it an issue of class, the average hunter that sits in line following the Colorado Division of Wildlife?s rules will get to hunt after 13 years of applying in some units, yet the hunter who has deep pockets can hunt this unit every single year. This is especially unfair to the average hunter who follows the rules and obtains a license per the draw, then has to go compete with the upper class hunter who gets to hunt it every year, and as icing on the cake, has to compete on BLM or National Forest land. It is very hard to track which landowners are issuing/selling these vouchers because they are only assigned a reference number. Furthermore, when selling the vouchers, whether it be through the use of voucher brokers, E-bay sales, newspaper ads, or Internet ads, the ads usually specifically state that the vouchers come with no private land access, which is illegal per the statute.

That is the problem that I have with them.

Once again, just my $.02
 
Peashooter,

The same thing takes place in Utah and Nevada and has for years.

Wouldn't you agree that the system would be better if hunters had a list of the landowners and could purchase them direct?

Utah and Nevada both publish who to contact for landowner tags.

I don't see a problem in purchasing a tag from a "broker" if they took the time to locate the landowner and market the tags.

But at the same time I think the public should have access to who these landowners are. At the very least the landowners should be willing to deal with the public in return for the potential income they receive from the vouchers. The landowners would likely make more money if they sold direct to the public and eliminated the middleMEN.

That being said, it's almost impossible to purchase a Colorado landowner voucher without doing so through a "broker."
 
I don't know a lot about this subject but I know Oregon and Montana have landowner tags, and they can only be used on the private land that they were issued for.
 
Supposedly tag numbers are based on the management objectives of the unit to maintain a certain buck to doe ratio which would ideally designate the area as a quality vs. quantity type area.

Landowner vouchers are allocated outside the regular draw but account for up to 15% of the tags allocated in the hunter drawing. If there are enough bucks to allow for this additional 15% of tags to be allocated to landowners, then it would be reasonable to suggest that these tags would have been able to be allocated in the regular draw.

Therefore a person with a little bit of common sense could see that in essence they have reduced opportunity at drawing a tag because of the allocation of tags to landowners.

When these tags are brokered as a free market commodity for profit without being restricted to the private land to which they were issued, its understandable that those who have accumulated preference points and participated in the draw process can feel like opportunity has been given away to be sold to the highest bidder.

Non-resident tag percentages were cut this year and without the tags allocated to landowners, there might have been a few more tags for you to draw. Sure, you might be able to afford one right now. But will you always be able to?

SOme landowner tag situations are entirely legitimate and help working class landowners and ranchers get through tough times. Many landowner vouchers conveiniantly exploit a loophole in the rules and reduce opportunity for all but those willing to engage in the bidding.

Basically its a "for profit" privitization and exploitation of a public opportunity. I believe the only reasons a sportsman would be for it is that they are making money on it or paying money for the opportunity to have a unit wide tag in a quality area.
 
Prism,

Good points! I think that anything that could be done to cut the "tag pimps" out of the equation is a step in the right direction.

I believe that there are several things that need to happen with Colorados landowner system immediately. The first is that they need to enforce the statute that says that they have to allow access to their land:

?Landowners receiving licenses pursuant to this section shall allow hunting on their land to properly licensed hunters, subject to the limitation of a reasonable number of such hunters.?(CRS 33-4-103(2))

Almost none of the landowners are doing this, unless they are charging big trespass fees, or outfitting.

The second thing is that if the vouchers are transferred to someone outside of the landowners family, they should become a private land only tag. The landowners deserve the right to hunt unit wide, because they provide valuable resources to the animals. I think that getting to hunt unit wide is a perk for the habitat they provide. The rich man that buys the voucher has done nothing to help the animals. This is why I think he should be restricted to hunting on private land. There is no reason why someone who has waited years to draw a tag in a good area, should have to compete with somebody who gets to hunt it every year just because he has a fat wallet.

Your point about the landowners having to deal with the public is right on. This is the main reason that the program is being abused so badly by landowners right now. All they have to do is fill out an application, get the vouchers, mail them to Garth Carter, and collect their check. The hunters in most cases will never even know what the ranchers name is, let alone where his spread is.

Right or Wrong, thats what I believe.
 
Peashooter-There are some that have to be squirming everytime they read one of your posts. I appreciate how well informed you are and your opposition to these exploitations of deer hunting is obviously based on the love of the animal and the hunt. Whats even more amusing is that there are no sound rebuttals to your arguements. 100 grand for a mule deer tag? That $100,000 wouldn't buy a 1/4 acre within 50 miles of most resort towns in the Rockies. It wouldn't pay for one DOW field employee's salary, vehicle and expenses for a year.

Keep stirring the pot man!
 
I guess I go back to Prism's question. Why is Colorado so different than the other states. All of the other states do the same thing and some are good unit wide. IMHO it wasn't a big deal until the quality of hunting has been raised by limited entry and now everyone wants to hunt and tags are scarce. The hype around the Gunnison basin last year was amazing, and with the warm weather I imagine that the ones that paid the handsome fee for 3rd season tags may not be so eager to give out 4,000.00 again. I called Garth Carter the other day to see what the prices would be. He told me that he is taking 500.00 deposits and will "set" the prices in may. There is a problem with the tag brokers making more money than the landowners. I will admit I have bought landowner tags in Colorado in the past. I don't see a problem with that and I now buy them directly from the landowner. I have made arrangements for this years (2006) tags already. There are ways to deal with the landowners directly. It doesn't include sitting at your computer hoping somone will e-mail you with a deal. If you want the tags make some phone calls, take out an add in the local newspaper, contact taxidermist in the are and with some persistance you can get the right contacts. The landowner I deal with wants to sell them directly to the hunter because the brokers have tripled the price given to him in the past. I know some of you don't like the landowner tags but every state I know has some type of program.
 
I will agree that landowners that receive financial compensation from the selling of their vouchers should be required to allow the tag holder to hunt on their property.

It is a free market. Colorado residents have as much opportunity to purchase these tags as anyone else.

What about the hunter that is saving his points to hunt a better unit or season and purchases a landowner voucher. There are a ton of scenarios of why someone would purchase a voucher.

It can be argued that the landowner tag system makes the odds of drawing better in some cases. If a hunter can purchase a tag without applying doesn't that potentially leave tag(s) to be drawn?

Unfortunately the demand for high quality tags far exceeds the supply-or fortunately it does for those that stand to make a profit from the situation.
 
I think it can be definately argued and proven that landowner tags have done just the opposite for draw odds, Paul. The ability to hype a limited commodity makes the percieved value higher than it has previously been and that can be shown almost across the board on draw odds for different hunts, deer and elk.

"If a hunter could purchase a tag without applying doesn't that potentially leave tag(s) to be drawn?"

Hypothetically its possible. But why would that occur with all the "hand-holding" application services that abound. Plus it didn't stop you from applying this year and still buying a landowner voucher. I don't think its a very strong arguement. Nothing personnal here Paul. Just throwing out my opinion.

I think what was a well-intentioned system that is 30 years old is being exploited for profit at the expense of those who participate in the draw. Tag drawing hunters now compete with those who have stepped outside the process and "bought" their way onto PUBLIC LAND through private commercilization of wildlife. That hurts us all in the long run, even if you aren't willing to admit it.
 
Waygoner,
That is an excellent article, I have seen the quartet in action, and can vouch for everything said in that article. If you dont believe it, I envite you to join me at the next Wildlife Commission meeting to see it for yourself.

This article by my friend Charlie is much more applicable to this particular subject though.
http://www.denverpost.com/charlie/ci_3210038

Prism,
I see your point, but have to agree with the points that BUCKSPY is making. The thing you are not taking into account is that like you said, people are buying vouchers WHILE also applying so that they dont have to use their points. Even worse yet for chances to draw, the landowners are now putting in on the general draw for themselves because the vouchers are too valuable to be using one for themselves.

These landowners have thier hands so far in the pockets of the powers that be, that they are leading them around like puppy dogs. The state is allowing them to sell trophy animals off of public land, nothing but private commercialization of a public resource.

In the original statute, the provision was givin that if they recieved these tags, they must allow hunters on their property. They Havent. Somehow they have tricked the DOW into believing that if they could get "just another 10%" allocation, then they would be more than happy to allow the public access to their property for hunting....Bull. They didnt do it the first time, why would they do it this time. At the last couple Commission meetings, this is what they have proposed, in this system, there are no more checks and balances than in the last one. Just a good faith promise from landowners that they will do it. I for one dont buy it.

And dont even get me started on second home owners that happen to own their 161 acres.

take it for what it's worth, and remember it was free.
 
Just so everyone knows, Wyomnig does have a landowner license system. And it makes pretty good sense. They can only get two licenses and the licenses are nontransferrable, meaning that only the landowner (or their immediate family) can use them. They are good area wide. If I remember right, they can only get the licenses if they can prove/demonstrate 2000 animal use days per year for the species for which the license is issued.

The application forms are sent to the local game warden and he has to sign off on them a approve of the landowner application. And even with these limited unmbers, the process still has a significant effect on the license draw in many areas. But it's fair and the landowners need something for providing habitat. Wyoming also still has landowner coupons for deer, elk and antelope. They get $13 for every deer or antelope killed on their property and also get money for each elk. It's beens so long since I've gotten an elk license, I don't know the amount on the elk license.

Maybe some sort of compensation on the license like Wyoming, where the landowner gets X dollars for each animal harvested on their deeded property would be a better form of compensation.
 
I think that the major difference between Colorado and New Mexico Landowner tags compared to other states is the AMOUNT of tags being sold.
 
One thing that everyone is missing is that Colorado is already "generous" in their tag alotment to Non-residents. You forget that 15% is taken off the top for landowners, before the draw even happens. With all the people from 49 other states wanting to hunt foregoing the draw every year and all these tag pimps jacking the prices it makes it unreasonable for a resident to get one of these tags. When all is said and done Non-residents end up with damn near a 50-50 split on the tags.

So tell me in the other states.... what % of the tags do NR's get?? Jack your NR quota to 50% and see if you wouldn't be BIT##ING about getting screwed.

Now if they made landowners still sell the same porportional amount to res and non-res as applies in the colorado draw, I bet the price of the vouchers sold to residents would not be in the 4-5 dollar range and the tag pimps wouldn't be lining their pockets, laughing all the way to the bank.

Fact is hunting in Colorado has become a hot comodity, and its taking opportunity from those who live here and selling them to the highest bidder...NOT the PURPOSE the tags were orignally set aside for!

Just my 0.02 though...
 
Some good points made, and no offense taken.

I'm still curious though why it's such a big deal in Colorado and the hunters in Utah, New Mexico, and Nevada don't have such a problem with it?

Perhaps it's the large number of tags available in Colorado, but when you consider the HUGE number of conservation tags that Utah has I'd think it'd be a wash for quality tags.

And yes, I do not agree with the HUGE number of conservation tags we have in Utah. Mainly because there are too many people making GREAT livings off of them and I don't see any more improvement in our game herds vs. the surrounding states. Especially our deer herds. I do see a major success story in Colorado's deer though.

I do not agree that this should be such a resident vs. nonresident issue though.

Colorado residents have the same opportunity to purchase (and sell if desired) these landowner tags that are being "pimped" out by the evil money hungry nonresidents.

I'd think that most Colorado hunters would be happy for a program that may keep some ranchers from selling off thier property to developers-atleast put it off for a few more years.

I'd even argue that Colorado residents have a much better opportunity to buy them for less, as it's a lot easier for them to purchase the tags direct from the landowners.

When the program first started I don't remember seeing a bunch of post on here from upset Colorado hunters. I'm sure that for the year or two most of the tags were sold or given to residents for next to nothing.

I have a solution to the problem. If Colorado didn't have a 200" buck behind every tree, there wouldn't be a fraction of the demand:)

Anybody know WHY there isn't a list of the landowners?
 
Buckspy,
Your post #4 is the best I have ever seen on the subject. Well-written, well-said, and well-represented. Well done. Exploitation is the name of the game, of public game for private profit. Won't be long until we are back in England. If people don't wise up to the racket that is going on, soon only the rich and privileged will hunt. Isn't that very type of thing the reason we came to this country? There are bigger issues at stake here than simply paying to play. It's about the trend that will soon price the average man and child out of the heritage of hunting.
Landowner tags need to be reigned in. This is the most amazing example I have seen in a while in regard to giving an inch and taking a mile.
 
When you live in Alaska... you don't expect 80 degree sunny Florida weather. If you live in the AZ desert you don't expect an abundace of water like CO. Does that give you the right to think that someone should have to forego those benefits because you are a citizen of the US and its your right??

Point is people choose where they live for a reason. Part of the reasons I live in CO is that we have excellent opportunity to hunt. The economy and the pay scale here sucks, so that all you have. Its a sacrifice! You don't like it, move here and suffer the chitty pay with the rest of us, for the benefit of the great hunting. Everyone wants there cake and to be able to eat it too, but if you go taking my cake... I'm gonna be pi$$ed!(simple as that).

I think that if the other states have no right to complain,as it stands you have a 20 times better chance of getting a tag here in CO as a NON-RES... than I do in your state.

Honestly take 15% of your tags off the top and auction them to the highest bidder through out the other 49 states and see if you can afford to buy one. Then go and give another 40% to NON-residents for the draw.

What are the percentages from other states for non-res??? Some factual evidence would be nice... Post the numbers and see how they compare and tell me who's getting screwed....
 
Sneakem,

Why don't you tell us how you really feel:)

Up to this point Utah has offered 10% of our limited tags to nonresidents, although nonresidents make up the majority of hunters with conservation (5% of our tags) and landowner tags (likely another 5% of our tags). That's getting pretty close to 20%.

If I'm not mistaken, out of all of the states nonresidents foot more of the DOW's bill in Colorado than any other state-70% plus. I'm confident that resident hunters would gladly pay more to get that number more inline with the rest of the West if that ment they'd receive more of the tags.

Lets say Colorado did drop the nonresident quotas to 10%. What would happen to the landonwer tag situation then? Prices would climb even higher and the tag "pimps" would be laughing even harder on their way to the bank.

What about the hundreds of Ranching For Wildlife tags that Colorado residents are able to apply for? While nonresidents aren't allowed to apply.

To blame nonresidents for what the state of Colorado has decided and allows doesn't make any sense.
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-22-05 AT 12:53PM (MST)[p]Easy way to fix the landowner system:

1. Require hunters that buy the tag to be restricted to the private property it was based from.

2. Require any hunter that buys one of these tags to sacrifice any cumulated points they have for that species.

3. Find a way to track these funds to make sure the landowner is being taxed on the income.

4. Only allow one tag to be issued per species regardless of acreage owned. Wouldn't one elk or deer suffice to feed the poor starving landowner?
 
I don't think #2,3,4 of your suggestions are required if you could get #1 done.

JB

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."
--Benjamin Franklin 1759
 
Prism,
I can only talk of Utah and my opinion is based on a lot of public meetings and talking with friends.

There are 3 types of "Antlered" landowner tags in Utah:
1- CWMU
2- Limited Entry Unit
3- General Season Tags

The CWMU issue is, for the most part, accepted by many Utah hunters because the hunting takes place ONLY on the Private land of the CWMU (or a small percentage of public lan, but that is a different topic). Most of the CWMUs are located in General Season Units, thus the public isn't looseing opportunity as UDWR does not reduce General Season Licenses to give tags for the CWMU. CWMUs also allow a limited number of NonPaying public hunters to hunt the ranches.

The Limited Entry Unit Landowner tags only comprise 10% of the overall tag numbers for the unit. Many hunters can stomach this tag allotment because the landowner has such long odds of drawing a tag. Until recently, when the Hunt Application Services are buying all the tags for units, prices were not extreme and landowners could be contacted for a possible tag. Now these Application Services are buying all the tags for many units and marking them up significantly.

The General Season Landowner tags are given out on a very limited basis and the tags are not deducted from the General Draw.

Colorado gives 15% of EVERY unit to landowners, since they do not have Limited Entry or General Season hunts. That is a big difference. Can you imagine what Utah hunters would say if the UDWR gave 15% of all permits to Private Landowners?? I would love to get the chance at landowner tags for our ranch which houses 100s of elk and many deer.

Solving the perceived problem would be SIMPLE:
1- Landonwers must allow the tag hold to hunt their land.
2- The Landowner Voucher can ONLY be transferred ONCE, from the landowner to the hunter. No more middle man doubling his money.
 
Prism- LOL... :)

If you look at it like that 20% nowhere equals 50%... and to boot Colorado has twice the population of Utah same as most other western states with the exception of CA,AZ,WA...

As for RFW... the ranch takes its lump of tags which is mostly NR hunters and gives 10% of the amount of tags they take to be available to residents... essentially a 90-10% split in favor of NR's. (granted that its NR's with $$$$$ but not any different than LO vouchers)

I know that I would glady pay more for a tag if I could draw one and not have opportunity sold fom under my feet for the almighty $$$$$. Besides it was the residents who took a 50%-100% increase in fees for this coming 2006 season. Plus habitat stamps, mandatory donation to the wildlife education fund etc. etc. Last year the DOW here made a profit of 10,000,000 dollars so I don't really think that they're hurting for money as it stands. Plus all the leftover tags are open to anyone to buy, which means NR's have the same capability as res to buy that tag.

I think if they took the tag pimps out of the equation all together... it would help to fix the problem. Along with other revisions, many of which have been suggested here.

I don't think that asking for 80% resident split would be that much to ask for...just keeping par for the rest of the western U.S.

I don't mean this post to sound like I want NR's to have no opportunity to hunt here...by all means come, but I don't want to take the shaft on my right to hunt because they want to sell out our game for the sole purpose of lining their pockets.
 
I'm glad to see this debate. Good points made by all parties and a very civil exchange.

I think we've generally agreed there are some serious flaws in the way Colorado is handling this issue, and Peashooter is correct in stating that the Commission is very seriously considering allowing an additional 10% of licenses to go to landowners with no further checks or balances on the system.

Since I believe this site hosts a high percentage of intelligent sportsmen who clearly care about the resource, I'd suggest the next step for all interested parties would be to individually draft letters to the Wildlife Commission to elicit a real change in the system. Decisions are made by those who show up, and I fear we have not had enough "good guys" at the table when these decisions have been made in the past. Letters can be sent to:

The Colorado Wildlife Commission
c/o Policy and Regulations Section
Colorado Division of Wildlife
6060 Broadway
Denver, CO 80216

or you can email comments to: [email protected]

The key to real change in this instance is accountability. Currently, there is absolutely no accountability for landowners to allow "reasonable public access" to their lands, and there is no list of landowners published, so no one has a clue as to what landowners received what tags. Further, there is no accountability that any given landowner's property is actually beneficial to wildlife in any way.

The Wyoming system as described by ICMDEER makes all kinds of sense and introduces some reasonable checks and balances to the system. I'd encourage everyone to submit a letter to the Commission so they know the status quo is simply not acceptable, and give them a list of reasonable requirements to be added to the system to get these inequities changed. Like any committee, they hate to hear complaints if there aren't reasonable solutions also offered, so let them hear exactly what we've discussed on this site.
 
Sneak,

Great post, and great idea for people to email the Commission. You dont have to send them an essay, just any corespondence to them helps. They have a packet available to the public at their meetings with all the email input they have recieved since the last meeting. It is good to see that every month that packet is getting a little thicker.

However, when I testified at the last commission meeting, Commissioner Bray ensured me that they are working on an adjustment that would "tie" the voucher to the landowners land. Who knows for sure, but that would definately be a start. The thing that concerns me most is that when I pushed the Commission to make landowner vouchers private land only, they told me straight up that it is an issue of Statute, and they can not do a thing about it. They said that the legislature are the only people that can change it. This being said, I encourage everyone to write to a couple state senators or representatives. A new session starts in January, and hopefully this issue will be addressed.

You can find emails for legislators at this site: http://www.leg.state.co.us/Clics2006a/csl.nsf/Directory?openFrameset

Thanks for your help.
 
RFW is a scam! Those ranchers get early season rifle tags so they can shoot OUR rutting bulls in September, charge $10k per hunt, and in return have to let some sucker hunt his ranch. And he gets to dictate what part of the ranch they can hunt, and at what times of the day they are allowed on the property! Meanwhile the hunter just burned 10 years of points to chase dinks or nothing at all.

The nonresidents should be thankful they cannot draw RFW. I drew the Mesa Mood elk tag once and turned it in once they told me where my access was, that i couldn't enter the ranch until 9am, and had to be out by dark. AND...you don't even get to scout the ranch! What a great deal for the hunter.
 
Why is it that they can have cow tags for late season that are "private land only" but they give out these regular season vouchers that are unit wide? With the abundance of elk and the deer numbers just starting to come back up, one would think that this would be the other way around.
 
All I can say is that I like to hunt Colorado. My letter to the commission asks that they make no changes at all.
In fact, any non-resident who wishes to hunt Colorado in the future should also be writing the commission. A simple decision in a few weeks could be the difference between drawing a good tag every 5 years or every 15 years.

Brian Latturner
MonsterMuleys.com
 
Founder,
Are you talking about a particular decision that they are going to make in a few weeks, or just a simple decision in general?

I think its great that you write the Commission, I encourage everyone to write them, not just "my side". They make decisions based on public input lots of times, and if there is none, you never know what they will decide.
 
Founder does not want it to change because he obtains a landowner tag to hunt Colorado. The Huntin' Fools don't want it to change because they make big $$$$ and shoot big bucks through landowner vouchers. These are completely selfish reasons. Most that want it to change do it for all those who apply to obtain tags through the drawing, an equal chance for all involved.
 
Great discussion folks...just a few points.

I know a big the reason the landowner tags in Utah have been issued in Utah is alleviate some of the issues with farmers and ranchers. The state gave them tags so the ranchers would allow the deer to fded/winter on their ground. The tags serve to compensate the the landowner for any loss caused by deer/elk on his property. I don't have a problem with this, particularly when many of these ranches serve as critical winter ground for deer and elk. Consider the disasterous impact on deer herds if all these areas start being developed.

I agree, however, that the landowner needs to allow the hunters with his vouchers on his property...but why not allow these hunters on the entire unit. In many cases the landowners ground serves a vital role in the health of the deer/elk herds.

As far as the brokers, if they can sell the voucher for more than they bought it for, who are we to restrict the free market system. Do I like to see a guy with a fat wallet come in and buy a tag I have to wait 10 years to draw? No way, but I'm not going to give anyone the ability to restrict my freedom to make a profit. Who knows but one of these days Garth Carter gets stuck with a bunch of vouchers that he can't sell for what he paid for them.

Obviously, limits need to be placed on the number of landowner tags...Colorado would be unwise to alloocate more tags to landowners particularly if the landowners are not living up the original agreement.

Anyway, just my two cents.
 
Just a few thoughts on the NR issue. IMHO one of the reason that Colorado has some the ability to have limited quota hunting areas are from the fees of the NR. If 70% of their budget was from NR hunters what do you think would happen if they knocked it down to 5 to 10%. You would see an immediate increase of cost and number of resident tags to make up for the lost income. I can tell you that you do not want to live in a state like Oregon that manages their wildlife by seeing how many tags they can sell. The two highest states in quotas to NR, Colorado and Wyoming have the best hunting in my opinion. I don't think that is a coincidence. I think it has to do with how much money they have to operate on. However, I can understand living next to great hunting and not being able to hunt. It is more common than you think and it happens in every state not just in Colorado.
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-23-05 AT 02:31AM (MST)[p]I too don't want a thing changed with the CO landowner tag system. Anyone of you cry-babies can get tags, and be a tag pimp too. ALL it takes is 3 months worth of knocking on Colorado farmers doors, long phone bills, and some advertising allowance to sell any extra tags us "Pimps" may end up with.

Most brokers(pimps) I know, do it for one reason, and that is "TO HUNT" !!!!

TAG PIMP, call it what you want, but like with all "PIMP's" you get to sample the merchandise(quality hunt).

ALL in all, Tag Pimps, Brokers, Outfitters, Hunters---you earn those dam tags in Colorado thanks to the Colorado Privacy Act. So don't knock the "Pimps" They just want to hunt "WORSE" then some you cry babies on this site.

Snowpimp
 
snowman,

"Anyone of you cry-babies can get tags, and be a tag pimp too." Ah, you finally showed me the light on what I want to do when I grow up. I gotta give you pimps credit for being opportunists, you found a good situation, discovered a loophole, and exploited it to the fullest and ruined it.

I respect the fact that you are willing to do anything to hunt, the unfortunate thing is that in that process you destroy the quality of the hunt for a lot of very deserving people that put in their time to legitimately draw that tag.

Do you want us to cry you a river about the Colorado privacy act making it hard for you to get your "job" done? The privacy act means nothing to the tag pimps that I've dealt with, they have found plenty of ways around it. Last year in my area, every landowner I know recieved dozens of phone calls from people wanting to buy their tags. It is annoying, and disrespectful to them and their families. I even recieved one of Garths I'll help you get your vouchers, please let me sell them letters, and I dont own anywhere near enough land to obtain vouchers. Still, that didnt stop him from sending that letter to anyone he could find in public records that had agricultural land of any kind. There were several things stated in Garths letter that are illegal, and it is a shame that this is how he is trying to promote our sport.

I'm sure that there are some tag pimps that are great guys, that do everything on the up and up, and you may be one of those snowman. The problem is that there are some that are so crooked that they are ruining it for all of you. Seems like that is what happens anytime that this much greed enters into anything.

I hope that if you are a nice law abiding guy, which I'm sure you are, that it doesnt affect you that much, but the law is going to change, and hopefully be enforced.
 
I've been following this debate, and I like and agree with what the peashooter, BUCKSPY and many others on the have to say. Keep on keeping on.

The REAL crybabies in this case are the ones who dont like it when a number of informed and articulate sportsmen get fed up with seeing where money and the influence of a minority is taking modern public big game hunting in Colorado, and actually pipe up and rock the boat. Its nice to see so many speaking out on how the landowner tag aquisition system that is increasingly being played, manipulated and abused to the nth degree.

A once readily accessible, relatively fair and viable tag draw system in Colorado, seems now to be eroding and is increasingly cutting out opportunitys for the average sportsman, especially non-residents. First cutting out the RFW draw, then practically doubling prices on NR deer and elk tags, then drastically cutting back available NR tags for premium units, and substantially all units in general... then who knows what. Sure, no doubt, overall its still better than some states... but talk about marinating, grilling, slathering on barbecue sauce, as and gnawing on the hands that feed you. What next???

The Colorado DOW has lately made some good decisions in general, I am glad they started more closely managing deer herd, but its obvious to me that some major changes need to be made in the landowner tag system, especially now with the other tag limitations now in place. This "landowner tag-but hunt public land" thing is just another factor that is easing us ALL closer and closer to the European model of hunting, except in this case it is negatively affecting hunter opportunity on OUR public lands, and that Royally sucks. Free market is one thing, but do it on your own land!!!

Speak now, or forever hold your peace... stuff like this is easier to nip in the bud now than years down the road.

I'll be sending my letter to the DOW. If you dont like your lumps, you should do the same.
 
What is interesting is doing some of the math behind the draw odds on some units. They might not take 5 points this year or next but will soon jump to the 80-20% split qualification and thus landowner tags will become even more coveted, the price will go up. I predict when the requirement to allow access to the land in which they are issued starts being enforced, some landowners will undoubtedly balk at the idea of having a free for all by quad hunters on their lands. More reduced opportunity. Of course thats just my opinion. I could be wrong.

Someone mentioned that a few years ago not many residents cared about landowner vouchers. Suffice it to say that over the last decade, hundreds of Colorado residents have lobbied and participated in Stakeholders groups and workshops and traveled all over the state for meetings to finally get the DOW to be accountable for the mule deer decline in this state. The tag numbers are almost half of that they were a decade ago and now because of reduces buck harvest we have some of the best deer hunting in the West. Thanks very much in part to Colorado sportmen who refused to accept the mantra from the DOW and insisted that we harvest less bucks to improve our buck to doe ratios and deer herds.

I think residents who work and live in this state deserve what they are getting and probably more. I also understand that if I lived somewhere else I would want to be a part of this. Its not a free for all anymore and like most things of limited quantity, they become more coveted.

For you boys in Utah, cut your buck tags in half for 5 years and you would see the same results. The problem is no one wants to be the guy to go without a tag and be the one explaining to his buddies why he didn't get his buck. You guys have lots of great habitat that could produce lots and lots of great bucks but you are obviously killing to many immature bucks. From people I have talked to over there, the peer pressure to fill the tag accounts for way to many dinks hitting the dirt.
 
Snowman,
you are entitled to your opinion, but I have to say that some of your comments are not only immature, but extremely short-sighted.
Pestering the hell out of landowners and sacrificing the future of the sport in the non-hunting public's eyes just so you can get an extra tag or two just shows that of the "there's givers and takers" that you are a taker.
 
Packout - You are right!!!! It is selfish, BUT I WANT TO HUNT TOO!!! No way can I sit back and say, "please CDOW, take away my tag and give to someone else". Sorry, but I can't do it. I like to hunt Colorado.

As far as the landowner vouchers, some work very hard tracking down landowners who qualify. I see no problem with helping the landowner make a few bucks and supplying a hunter with a tag.
Landowners play an important role in the quality of the herd and they should benefit just as sportsmen do. The landowner/sportsmen bond serves sportsmen well, and will do for many years to come.

Brian Latturner
MonsterMuleys.com
 
I would like to add a few personal opinions about why the landowner license debate has become a hot issue. Totally limited licenses for deer and great trophy deer in numerous units has created a greatly increased demand and value for the better deer tags. Tag brokers and hunters that can afford it are taking advantage of the fact that there are transferrable landowner tags that are good to hunt unit-wide. Most sportsmen of average means have never complained about landowners getting 15% of the licenses. In the past that usually meant that a landowner could draw a doe or a cow tag every year instead of needing a preference point or two. Now landowners are selling their vouchers for thousands of dollars and the buyers are hunting on public land every year in the same units that most of us wait years for our turn to hunt. Still most of us would not complain too much. But now the landowners are asking for more tags. We have finally been pushed too far by the pure greed and entitlement mentality of the landowner lobby and their political clout.

Colorado has numerous programs to help the poor starving landowners. Colorado is the only state that pays 100% compensation for agricultural damage done by game amimals. The sums paid out in this program are astronomical and represent a big percentage of the license money that Colorado collects. Colorado has huge numbers of private land only tags. These tags are usually easy to draw. These licences in most cases are all that a landowner needs to hunt his property or bring in paid hunters to hunt his property. Colorado has the Ranching for Wildlife Program that benefits some of the largest properties.

The 15% landowner tag quota before the public draw is a leftover from another era. It deserves a complete re-examination. There needs to be a reasonable justification for it. The old reasons are no longer valid. The tired arguments that landowners deserve compensation for harboring wildlife or they will sell out to developers just don't cut it anymore. Landowners are already richly compensated in multiple ways. I don't think the landowner licenses have prevented very many sales to developers. I have seen many ranches still receiving landowner licenses long after they were sold to developers.

Having said all that I still don't begrudge a landowner getting some sort of landowner license. I think the proposed changes put forth by Peashooter are very reasonable.

lostinOregon you say Coloradoans wouldn't want to live in a state managed like Oregon. You are right but you are forgetting that Colorado was Oregon with regards to deer just a few years ago. Colorado still is Oregon with it's elk herd. The majority of the Colorado Division of Wildlife budget comes from unlimited nonresident elk hunters. Many of us would love to change that but I don't see that happening anytime soon.
 
This is a great discussion.

It's too bad we have to have it, IMHO, because so many states have already slipped down that slippery slope toward wildlife privatization. In Wyo, it's hell no, we won't go that way - neither landowners nor outfitters and their clients deserve preferential access, based on ability to pay, to a public resource. We do have landowner licenses here (as ICMDEER said) that help to compensate landowners that support/winter a certain # of wildlife - but that's two tags max and they are non-transferable (they can't sell them - it's for their use only). It's basically forage compensation.

Both landowners and outfitters see the potential $ involved if they got licenses they could sell to the highest bidder, but WY sportsmen have held them off. We don't have set-asides for profit in Wyo and (hopefully) we never will.

Anytime a transferable license goes to a landowner or an outfitter, they are going to use it (unless they are crazy) for the max economic benefit - to whoever can pay the most - cutting out yet another regular hunter from an equal chance to access a PUBLIC RESOURCE. Wildlife is not a commodity, and licenses are not currency (or shouldn't be). It's a public resource, and shouldn't be guided by "pay to play" guidelines.

Sorry for the soapbox - for other states that already have landowner/outfitter set-asides, I'd say the guiding principle (unless you can get rid of them) is to work toward making it as fair as possible - to the regular Joe Blow hunter. The more we price wildlife up, the more it will become a rich person's sport. The more support hunting loses when folks get priced out, the quicker the anti's will win.
.02
mark
 
Buckspy,
While most of what you say is the truth, I disagree with the cutting tags arguement.

In 1994, Utah cut buck tag numbers from 240,000 down to about 100,000. So if we cut tag numbers in half again we will then have 1/5 of the tag numbers from one decade ago. I would stand behind any cut in tags if it could be shown that Utah's deer herd would rebound if more tags were cut. Our Doe - Fawn ratios are steady, thus the doe population are getting bred.

Problem is, we have all these yahoos running the deer all year long. Trying to kill them, take their picture, get the sheds, find the Gov tag buck, etc. The "Window Sticker Mentality" we have here in Utah is a joke. "Put a sticker in your window, pretend to know deer, then drive home with a 1 1/2 year old 2x3 after the hunt, then complain of the lack of bucks while you are chasing mature bucks on the winter range to get their sheds so you can prove to everyone that you really do know deer." That is the problem. Too much ego involved pressure trying to be "Muley Crazy". Too bad this has spilled into Southern Idaho and Western Wyoming.

But hey, what do I know.
 
Mark,

Just curious how much money Wyoming raises from its commissioner tags??? And how that whole stystem works?
 
Packout-I think deer are pretty resiliant animals for the most part and I don't think what you describe has that much impact other than killing the 1 1/2 year olds. You wipe out of half the age class of young bucks in the state every year and not many are left by the time those bucks reach 5-7 years. I've been to the SLC SCI show, seen the parking lots and know what you mean about the window sticker mentality.
 
Years ago the game warden in Estes Park, Colorado was talking about all the big bucks and bulls running around town amongst all the people. He said to me. "You know, it's amazing how well they do if you just don't shoot them".

That was a simple but profound statement. Yes, cutting the tag numbers is what needs to happen in Utah.
 
Cutting numbers alone won't help much as the last 10 years or so has proved.

Just as a huge cut across the board wouldn't of done much good for Colorado.

What else did Colorado do?

They started managing smaller units.

No longer could every Tom, #####, and Harry hunt one mountain range cause that's where all the bucks were, and move onto the next mountain range the following year.

I don't understand why Utah can't take a hard look at what Colorado has done and go "Geeze that's really working."

I'm afraid until our (SFW) wildlife agency decides that's what should happen we'll continue to have the same mediocre general publicland deer hunting that we have now.

It's time to take some focus off our elk herds, and limited entry units, and put some focus back into the areas that 90% of regular Utahn's hunt deer!

I don't buy into the theory that Colorado is sooooo much different either. Both states are losing winter range, and both states have similar habitat.

What Colorado doesn't have, is the $1.5 million dollars worth of conservation tags that Utah has. So why is it they're kicking Utah's butt when it comes to mule deer. Priorities I guess.
 
Buckspy,
I agree that they are resilient, but everyday/constant pressure get to these deer, especially the mature bucks which have spent their energy before winter even hits. I read a poem a smart guy (or probably his wife) wrote called "Snow Bucks". That was a true poem that needs to be followed, especially in Utah.
 
They did everything but cut huge numbers of tags for a while.
3 day buck seasons, no more statewide tags but it wasn't until drastic tag cuts were made in license numbers and the sale of leftover deer licenses was curtailed for a few years that we have seen major changes.

Its hard to believe that there is even half way decent quality in some areas with a month long archery season, 9 days of muzz, and three different rifle seasons.

Look what happened in the Henry's when they shut it down for a while. Its not as if the Henry's have world class habitat. It seems average to me. The only solution is to cut tag numbers. Its obvious people will pay as the landowner voucher program shows that. Also there is no shortage of non-resident apps in Utah for the Premium units. If guys will spend 7 g's on a quad, wouldn't you think they would dish out atleast 100-150 bucks to hunt quality bucks every couple years? A tank of gas is 60 to 100 bucks now and some of those dorks will burn a tank a day roadhunting and not piss-en-moan but charge them 150 bucks for a resident deer tag and they scream like gut-shot Iraqis.
 
I think that colorado still only issues like 37,000 deer tags anyhow. Killing 100,000 deer every year seems like a little much to sustain any kind of herd, well besides spikes and forkies.
 
These aren't exact figures but close enough.

In 2004 there were 60,000 deer harvested in Colorado with a success rate of over 40%!

60,000 deer with a success rate of over 40%!!!!!!! With some counties producing more big deer than the entire state of Utah!

I'd imagine the 2005 figures will be close to the same.

There is no way Utah could support anything near those numbers with our deer herds in their current condition.
 
Reading all the posts I find my perspectives in landowner preference similar to so many of yours. This past summer I represented 'Sportsmen' in the Colorado 'License Allocation Working Group'. I encourage you to read what we put together, the facts, the flaws, the inefficencies, etc. of landowner preference in Colorado. Pull up on the internet "Landowner Preference" and read what Colorado Wildlife Federation's working paper on Landowner Preference detailed. If that doesn't work, pull up the Colorado Wildlife Federation website. It has that and more information. We do our homework and carefully set forth our position statements on issues like landowner preference.

Folks- Hunting heritage is a fragile thing, based on maximizing hunting opportunity to the most people. Vouchers sold privatize our sport, unlevel the playing field, and effectuate wildlife being a commodity. Money is never a satisfier, and hunting more and more conditional upon people large sums of money to do so only further erodes hunting opportunity for average sportsmen. I wrote recently most us hunters household budgets do not factor in a $3-5 thousand deer voucher for the best Colorado deer units, nor the $7-$10 thousand required for elk vouchers in the best elk units in Colorado. Make no mistake about it hunters, money interests are continuing to push for more landowner vouchers in Colorado.

Write our Colorado Wildlife Commission and tell them 15% is enough, and then tell Colorado legislators landowner vouchers need be restricted to private lands hunting only, where we need the hunting pressure. Then require landowners have documentable and enforcable public access. These hunters are reasonable corrections of course in landowner preference.

Thanks and I stand with you hunters whom do see major flaws in landowner preference.
 
Buckspy: There is more information than that. Pull up the 'Working Paper' on landowner preference. That is the meat and potatoes of landowner preference in Colorado. Me, I am technologically disadvantaged. I just pulled it up under our Colorado Wildlife Federation website under 'Big Game License Allocation.' Let there be no mistake, landowners have a lot of room to improve how they allocate tags within the 15%. I call it the have's and have nots of landowners. How any landowner might receive 50+ tags and many hundereds of others receive none is but one example. Also wasting almost 30% of the vouchers is pure inefficiency. Even if landowners were though to use the 15% optimally, which they are not, the public hunters have a decided limit of tolerance of preference they will tolerate. My limit is 15%.
 
I have no problem with the landowners "selling" tags. BUT...they should HAVE TO let whomever they sell or give the tags to access to hunt their land. The tags should NOT be valid on public lands.
 
Idaho Boy,

So you think I am a taker!!! I knock on farmers doors that are in the middle of "no where". Amost 100% of them want you to call them back. Do you want to know why???? SO, I can have a bidding war with the highest bidder, which most of the time I hear the names Carter & Pennington. That's how I even end up with only a few tags every year. Yes, most brokers are annoying, and greedy. I just sell enough to pay for my hunting. AND YES, once again I "TAKE" at the chance for an oportunity to have a quality hunt.
One more note Idaho boy--If you have a chance to pay for a quality hunt, do it now, as it is going to get worse. Furthermore, immature I am. If I was more mature and wiser, I would probably be saving my money, and not hunting.
PS-I too put the time in on applying for tags. I apply in 11 states. I'm maxed in AZ + AZ hunter education(I Ut Resident), as so I have sacrificed too. Buying bonus points every year, driving to AZ just to take a hunter education class (in AZ) to qualify for an extra bonus point. NV all species($260) per year just for points. And now WY. I will pay around $300 per year in preference points just as so I can have a chance at drawing a good tag in WY now. DO YOU NOTICE A PATTERN HERE "IDAHO BOY" $$$$$ MONEY!!!MONEY!!!every year it gets worse and worse, and worse.


Do all the crying on the landowners. They are the greedy ones. They want you to bid higher than the last offer they received. It should be called "LANDOWNER PIMPS INC."

Camo,
I agree with some of your thoughts. Hunt on the landowners land and not the public. Out of 4 high quality tags we got this year in CO, not one landowner would let us trespass on their lands. As so we pay these high prices mainly to hunt BLM, NOT private. I agree somthing has to be changed there!!!!

Snowman
 
Ackley223,

Your claims about Mesa Mood seem totally against how the ranch is ran to my knowledge. The ranch has a 100% success rate, or damn close to it, for the public hunters. You cannot be talking about a bull tag. These tag holders are guided free of charge. You are right there is no scouting.

When speaking to the ranch manager he has told me that he has to go help public hunters with their cow tags. It is their policy to ensure public success. I have a hard time believing the 9 o'clock thing. I was asked to run the gate one year and I was told 6 or 7, not 9 in the morning.

I agree the ranch system is flawed, but to hear the landowner side they feel they "house and feed" these elk year round. I feel the ratio of ranch to public tags should be a little closer together and the hunt dates should go together, but they do not.

I know the Mesa Mood is proud of their success rates for public and paying customers. I find your claims to be a little bit out there.
 
It was about 10 years ago when Ackley had that tag. They may have change the rules since then.

The RFW season dates are usually completetly aweful for the public hunters.
 
Dink,

If he the tag 10 years ago I do not know what the rules were back then. I can tell you what they have been for 7.

I do know the public hunters this year killed bugling elk and scored 353 and 320. Guided free of charge for a positive experience so the public hunters had no complaints. They are catered to on this ranch. The public bulls were right in line with the paying customers elk who paid 10k.
 
Prism: Answer to your question from clear up in post 43 (this string got busy!)

Wyo Game and Fish Commissioners are allowed to give out 8 tags each year to "charitable, non-profit" organizations. Those licenses can be used for elk, deer, or antelope in any hunt area in the State. Groups that get the licenses use them to raise funds, and don't have to give anything back to the State or to Game and Fish. Tags have gone to lots of groups - sportsmen's groups, service groups (like Lion's clubs), 4-H clubs, etc. Most clubs auction them off during banquets or do raffles or put them on e-bay. We get a couple each year and raffle them, holding to the principle that everyone deserves an equal chance (vs auctioning to the highest bidder).

The Governor also has tags, but he can give tags for moose and bighorn sheep too. Gov. Freudenthal did a great thing when he decided that his tags would go to organizations that support those species (i.e. sheep tags to FNAWS, elk tags to RMEF, etc)and they can raffle them, BUT they have to return the vast majority (80%, 90%? can't remember) of their funds raised to a fund the Gov set up called the Wildlife Heritage Foundation (WHF). Those $ go into projects that benefit wildlife in WY. Agencies and groups have to go through a competitive grant process to receive funds from the WHF.

Most Commissioners are now giving at least one of their tags to the WHF as well.

You can track where Commissioner's tags go (and where they have gone in the past)on the G&F website (hit 'Administration', then 'Commission', the 'License Authorizations'). Click on the Wildlife Heritage foundation logo (left hand side, about the middle of the home page) to get more info on the Gov. tag fund.

mark
 
Prism:
Not too many - 56 Commissioner's tags (7 Commissioners at 8 tags per) plus what the Governor gets (don't remember the exact #, not much more than the Commmissioners, but he gets to dole out a few moose and sheep licenses too). Let me know if you want the exact # - it'll be a couple days because we're heading out of town for a few days - should be packing now - my sweetie's gonna bonk me if I'm not ready soon....
mark
 
Bottom line if is for your ranch that where the tag should be used, Don't ya just love those ranches that get these tags and they don't want the hunter to hunt their ranch.
 
Gator,

I'm telling you, nothing worse than paying $3,000+ for a deer tag, and the landowner telling you that you cannot hunt my land. If you try to argue at all with the landowner, he will tell you to piss off, he can do it, due to the fact his tag is in such high demand.

And yes, a lot of you may say its guys like me paying these high prices to hunt, that is ruining the sport. But, can all of you MM memebers see yet who is in charge???? THE FREAKING LANDOWNER!!! They make all the calls now.

Nothing worse than a landowner calling the fish and game to complain about deer and elk damage to their land. The landowner threatens to shoot every single deer and elk. The landowners say they need to be compensated, as so the fish and game issue them a few landowner tags. The landowners then sell them for premium $$$ and then tell the hunter they can't hunt their land. NOW GO FIGURE!!! They just want the big $$$$

I will have to admit it's nice to be able to pay and have a quality hunt. But it would not hurt my feelings at all if CO cut off the landowners and added the tags back to the public draws. I can wait and draw a tag every 5-7 years. It would be worth it to me, watching the landowner "NOT get there way"!!

Snowman
 
Gator,

I agree, it sucks when you spend a lot of $$$ on a landowner tag and then they tell you not to hunt there land. Exspecially when most landowners complain they need tags due to the fact the animals are causing so much damage to there land.

Don't get me wrong, I would love to see the landowner NOT get there way. I would be willing to wait 5-7 years to draw a tag, if it meant the landowners would NOT be getting there way.

If I try to argue with a landowner about hunting his land, he will just tell me to piss off!! It has happend to me twice, as so I have learned my lesson not to argue with the landowner on buying his tag, and then not being able to hunt his land. The tags are just in too high of demand. AND the FREAKING landowners know it. They can set the price to what ever they want. They are pulling an amazing $6,500 for 3rd season 21, 10 tags, I think unit 44 4th seasons are selling around that price too. Crazy!!

Just my 3 cents worth.
Later,
Snowman
 
Just a follow up to these numbers.

Post season counts put Colorado's deer population around 600,000 animals! Success rates are closer to 46% with just over 90,000 hunters.
 
Just a follow up to the numbers.

Colorado and Utah share about the same number of deer hunters around 90,000.

Colorado has a post season population of around 600,000 deer, about double (if not more than) Utah's deer population. And Colorado's deer hunt is about twice as succesful as Utah's deer hunt.

So roughly everything is about twice as good in Colorado as it is in Utah. Except the women, basketball, snow, etc....

Or in hunters terms, shooting a 90" buck in Utah is like shooting a 180" buck in Colorado.

So don't feel too bad about killing a dink in Utah:) And don't feel to good about killing a big buck in Colorado:( It's all relative right.

Just having some fun......
 
Good points all---tricky deal trying to provide adequate access for the hunting "joe" (who has relatively few advantages like wealth and/or land) --- and still maintain a competant program for deer while looking for next year's operating budget.

Interesting point, Snowman, as the landowners gotta take responsibility for some of this. I.E.; when Mr. Mars (Mars Candy mogul) bought his hefty acreage in the Powder River drainage (MT & WY)-you can bet the public wildlife was considered a cash asset....more and more of western landowners (resident and not) are on this bandwagon and CA$H is what's talking.

One thing for sure--- if H.R. 3855 passes and they DO start selling up to 15% of our public land to private parties to pay for hurricane disasters like Katrina, it's a no-brainer outcome for "joe" hunter and reasonable wildlife management. Then we might as well look at the European style of hunting cause that's what we'll have.

The handwriting is on the wall, choose your special interest group and hope they have more clout than your competition.
 
Prism, Thanks for posting the numbers. It looks like Utah should try a total of about 45,000 tags issued by management area. It aint rocket science.

Excuse me while I go get my 150 point Utah buck out of the garage. After your post I now know that I need to take down one of my big Colorado deer mounts to make room for that Utah trophy of a lifetime. Should be equivalent to a 300 inch Colorado buck.
 
Snowman: If you have the names of Colorado landowners whom sell landowner vouchers without access, you have a duty to report them to the Divsion of Wildlife. We in Colorado are tired of landowners circumventing required 'reasonable public access'. So why not help you sport (hunting) and turn in these bad apples?. I for one would like to see them justify to our Colorado Wildlife Commission how they sell vouchers and then deny access. Whether the animals are on that ranchers land is another matter. Public access is the balancing component to how landowner preference has always been suported at the legislature. The voucher brokers are not at fault, as they will include all features allowed by the selling ranch. Any landowner whom would deny at least the voucher buyer the option to hunt his lands the voucher came from is the lowest of bottom feeders.

A short story. Landowner lobbyists would tell you these renegades whom would deny public access are few. I say they are many, no teeth in enforcement of required public access, at least here in Colorado. At least until now. Isn't it about time we begin to disclose whom they are?. Post the names. The sport you save may be the one we all love, hunting... a tradition and heritage based on the most affordability to all, and hunters having unbridled access to hunting licenses.

Read what Jim Pozewitz has to say about hunting. He and what he writes may be the next Teddy Roosevelt of hunting. Make no mistake about it hunters, wildlife must never be a commodity. If you want a commodity, buy stocks and bonds.
 
Snowman I don't find anything you are doing wrong you are just finding a niche in this crazy hunting world to market your ability to find tags and re-sell them. ALL I'M saying is that if I guy get tags for his ranch that is where those tags should be used, Even if he sell 20 tags to you to re-sell they should still be used on his ranch.(it slays me that they ##### every year about all the damage that is being caused but wouldn't let you hunt on there ranch)It the CDOW would put on the tag that they must be use on said ranch you would not have as many tags I'm sure. Supply and Demand still works.
 
I think the DOW hippie doing the deer count took a lot of acid before he started counting to see 600,000 deer! Give me a break.

The ironic part about Utah vs. Colorado is, Utah should manage their deer like Colorado, but Colorado should manage their elk like Utah. If Colorado would limit the bull hunters, we would really produce some quality animals, instead of 90% of 2.5 year old dinks getting smoked.

Another thing Colorado should do is not issue any leftover buck tags. If the unit does not have enough applicants as tags, then tough. There are some units that are giving away an additional 600 buck tags after the draw. Do they really think there is an excess of 600 bucks in those units??? All that equals is 600 more 4wheelers and monster trucks driving around ruining the hunt for the original people that applied for that unit as their first choice.
 
Ackley:

You're right on the money there! Remember when Colorado first went to statewide limited deer tags--for the first 2 years of limited draws, they did NOT sell any leftover tags, and those 2 years marked the most rapid rebound of quality bucks we've ever seen on the western slope. True, in a few units their idea of "limited" tags was still pretty liberal, but by shutting out the last-minute, no-planners, they created a reasonable quality-hunt situation for those who did draw, and a lot of young bucks lived to see maturity. I agree whole-heartedly they should return to that system.
 
Walltent,
Gator,

I did call CO on the landowners. They told me it's all right for the landowner to deny access if they want to. They told me the landowner tags are unit wide BLM, NF, and the landowners land you bought the tag from. But the landowners don't necessarily have to let you hunt there land. It's BS for them to deny me.

If there is a law, or rule that states otherwise, will someone tell me about it.???

Snowman
 
I personnaly hate the Landowner Voucher system we have in Colorado, but until they change it, I'm going to take advantage of it. I'm done fighting it. If the State is going to create such a stupid program, well I'd be just as stupid to not use it.

Just this week I got a total of 2,300 acres signed up for the program. I just knocked on doors until I found someone who was willing. Now because I got land in two different GMU's, I'm looking at getting 5 buck tags for both Deer & Antelope and who knows how many Doe tags. One GMU requires 1 point to draw and the other takes 2 points. But I will not be selling these vouchers, my freinds and family will be using them, and what I dont use I will give to the kids that attend our MDF dinner.

I'll be out trying to get more land enrolled this week and all the way up until the deadline next month.
 
Prism-Don't sell yourself short. You should be proud of those nice bucks you have taken in Colorado the last couple of years. There are tens of thousands of hunters going home empty handed that would give their left nut to kill a buck like those and anyone taking a 180 plus buck on public land should feel pretty good about it.

As far as feeling good about killing a dink in Utah? Maybe if guys would forego the "feelgood" over killing a dink, then there might be a few more good ones in a few years. How good does it feel to kill some of the few immature bucks left in a seriously overhunted herd.

I passed up a few dozen bucks this year including 5 I figured would gross between 180 and 190 but none were what I was looking for so I chose to go home without filling my buck tag as opposed to taking a buck. I wouldn't expect everyone to do that but many lower their standards a few days into the hunt and drop them completely on the last day or two and kill bucks to fill a tag.

Here in Colorado, limiting license numbers proved unequivocably that it isn't lions, coyotes, road kill, or habitat loss. Its human predation of the hunter variety and there was too much of it. Cowkiller is right. It aint rocket science. If you let them live, they get older.
 
Cohunter,

You go brother!!!

I feel the same way. Stupid program!! Yes, take advantage of knocking on doors and sign them up. Better you than one of the other HUGE tag brokers.
Plus, I admire that you would donate one to the MDF and let a kid have one.

I think we need to really get our kids more involved with hunting. I just read the other day, that in NV for every 100 hunters that retire, only about 17 new hunters replace them. NOW is that scary or what???? Where is the future of hunting headed?

Snowman
 
Snowman,
It is Colorado state law that they allow hunters on their land if they get vouchers. I'm not going to tell you the statute number though....you might as well have to do a little research for that free money you are making.

As far as you calling the DOW and them telling you that they arent required to, I doubt you bothered to call, but if you did I would love for you to let me know who you spoke with? PM me their name if you dont want it on here, and I'll speak with their boss about it....I have him on speed dial.
 
Snowman,
It is Colorado state law that they allow hunters on their land if they get vouchers. I'm not going to tell you the statute number though....you might as well have to do a little research for that free money you are making.

As far as you calling the DOW and them telling you that they arent required to, I doubt you bothered to call, but if you did I would love for you to let me know who you spoke with? PM me their name if you dont want it on here, and I'll speak with their boss about it....I have him on speed dial.
 
Vouchers do NOT carry automatic access right today. Read the latest Commission documents on the CDOW web. The exciting thing it is currently being proposed and could be adopted as soon as this season.

See the blue text section 4.4 Landowner preference.

http://wildlife.state.co.us/WildlifeCommission/2006/Jan/PreMtg/Ch 2 - landowner pilot.pdf

This change could backfire, sending all the vouchers to outfitters. I could see this happening if landowners do not want the hassle of managing hunter access on thier land. Only time will tell.

The only requirement for access I am aware of is if they claim game damage.
 
Reasonable public access unfortunately today has no teeth for enforcement, yet let me tell you hunters landowner interests say ranches receiving vouchers yet denying public hunter access is (1) not a big problem, and (2) not provable. I believe circumventing public hunter access is a BIG problem, and that public access denyed voucher buyers (as well as other public hunters thought to would have had access to these private lands) can be delt with by names, dates, situations back to DOW. When landowner interests swept thru the Colorado legislature in 2000 with HB-1098, a friendly Republican legislature (then) passed the bill easily. HB 1098 essentially invented vouchers (preference had been around since the mid 1980s yet only in terms of licenses issued directly to hunters the ranch designated, with no money back to the ranch. My point hunters is this: A basis for the bill was to allow for public hunter access on private lands. No lobbyists ever said vouchers might be sold without access provided, or for that matter that other deserving responsible public hunters might find a locked gate and no hunting when legitimately seeking hunting access.

Therefore, if landowner preference gets upended or massively restructured at any point in the future, blame no one but the landowners whom circumvented access one too many times, and violated the very spirit of what landowner preference was intended to be as created in the 1980s.
 

Similar threads

Founder
Nevada Hunting with White River Guide Service
Replies
0
Views
359
Founder
Founder
J
Colorado CPW Commissioner Debate!
Replies
36
Views
2k
jims
J
C
draw question
Replies
3
Views
884
sticksender
sticksender

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

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

20231112_111415(0).jpg
IMG_0014.jpeg
20220718_202012.jpg
18355B78-BF21-4ED9-A9C6-BFBB45902CCE.png
20221018_141929.jpg
IMG_0239.JPG
IMG_8746.png
DSCN3047.JPG
662CEC4E-0508-4901-A784-C00FD99E1BBA.jpeg
59B37502-3B58-43AC-94E5-7C94B360300F.jpeg
ABC1D575-EAEF-48A2-8488-DDB3D4F1431B.jpeg
IMG_1565.jpeg
Back
Top Bottom