COLORADO LAND OWNER RIP OFF VIEW ALL

H

HighWidenHandsome

Guest
Because I didn't draw my prefered unit in the Colorado
draw I was considering purchasing a land owner voucher! I was shocked at the price of the voucher, but more to my amazement is the
fact that the land owners are not allowing trespass on the ground
they have used to qualify for the voucher! My understanding of the
CDWR regulations are that the landowner must provide access to the
land! Now, I understand the brokers have found a loop hole in the
law by having clients sign a contract ageeing not to hunt on the
private land! I personally don't see how a contract could be valid
because once the land owner agreed to the terms to obtain the voucher it included land access.
A source revealed to me that the permit holder cannot even
find out who the land owner is to get permission for access nor have
the land in question identified! To me it seems these landowners are
selling a public resource and offering nothing in return!
Hopefully this operation will be tested in court! I'm
suggesting anyone purchasing a landowner permit and being denied
access to the private land go ahead and hunt on your permit on
public ground, harvest your animal as you wish, but sometime before
the hunt is over report to the CDWR that you have been refused
private access! These landowners will be eliminated from further
permits and forced to return your permit fees!
I personally have no problem with a landowner being
reimbursed to some extent for wildlife using his land and if
hunters are willing to pay hefty fees to hunt (his land) I can
live with that too, but I believe in this case it is unreasonable!
I think many of the brokers have offered land owners a chance to
make some easy money as well as themselves and tried to come up
with a plan to screw the public as well as the terms they ageed to. WHAT DO YOU THINK?
 
Colorado law states "reasonable access" which is obviously open for interpretation from a common sense if not legal standpoint.

The voucher you recieve should have the landowners info on it from what I have been told unless the third party broker is securing the license through an agent for you and you wouldn't get to see it.

Most people couldn't give a crap about hunting the land to which the were issued because the real value in them is that you can hunt the whole unit.

The whole system stinks the way it has been manipulated and the only ones that aren't opposed to vouchers are the few that are buying or selling them. Sure it's handy to go buy a voucher if you didn't draw but that is cicumventing a fair draw system and is an example of the commercialization of the public's wildlife for profit.

It goes against the very core of America's hunting heritage and is a huge step backward toward old European elitist hunting priviledges.
 
I agree with you 100% BUCKSPY I would probably care less about access to most property as well! But in some cases just being able to cross private land to hunt public ground may be helpful! At
any rate without private land access I consider the transaction
illegal! I can't imagine going to another state and paying a landowner to hunt CRP ground! I also believe these brokers are
finding land in corporations, contacting a board member to sign off
for approval, give the land variances, he collects all the money,
no one else in the corporation even knows there's been a deal made
cause there is no land access available to the sportsman, so he and
the broker get rich! Anywhere there's money to be made there's
corruption! Some people believe the more money that goes to the
land owner the better the hunting is going to be! I find that hard to believe! Most of the ranches I'm familar with are relatively small with tons of acreage landlocked and they're certainly not
giving access to the public ground!
 
What the tag brokers are doing is having you sihn a contract and then you send them all your needed information and they will go to a license agent and buy a gift license for you.

What doesn't make sense to me, is that you could go to the DOW I'm sure, and they could tell you where the voucher came from. I enrolled a couple ranches in the program this year for pronghorn and it states that the landowner must give the person using the voucher access to the property it came from.

The only way we're going to see the voucher problem go away is if enough people complain to members of the state legislature, who created this monster. Vouchers should only be valid on the land they came from IMO.

But with Colorado hunters being the apathetic group of people they are, they'll just vent they're frustrations in web forums instead of to the people who have the power to change things.
 
You've got it right COhunter but I was told by a broker that
the CDWR won't release the land owner information! Andyou're also
right that sportsmen won't do anything about it! I'm a nonresident
and I'm probably the only one who has contacted CDWR with a complaint! (by the way, the only reason I had considered a voucher
is because I thought I may get one in unit 15, a unit I'm familar
with that usually goes undersubscribed,for next to nothing! I was
willing to pay $150 for 2 tags Total $300 I figured it would cost me that much to drive over to unit 34 or 25 to scout for a 3rd
season tag.) I do prefer to hunt late, so it's that or nothing,
probably nothing! Believe me, I wouldn't mind paying what I call a
reasonable access fee but the broker wants $950 a piece! A guy can
get some guided hunts for that!
 
Not all Colorado hunters are apathetic. In fact many don't even know the abuses of the system exist. There are tens of thousands of hunters hunting Colorado every year and I would be willing to bet that a vast majority of them don't have any idea of the abuses of the landowner voucher program. I would also be willing to bet that most of them would be apposed to these tags being valid unit-wide.

There are a few of us that I know of(myself, Sneak, Peashooter, Walltenthunter, techno, cowkiller) that have gone to commision meetings, talked with state lawmakers, and tried to point out the inequities and abuses of the system, but the agriculture lobby controls this issue. The Colorado Wildlife Federation will pursue this issue further in next years legislative session with the help of some hunter friendly lawmakers, from what I have been told.

$950 apiece for a 3rd season 15 tag. WOW! Did he say it with a straight face?
 
This signing of a contract not to pursue hunting on the land to which the voucher was issued further demonstrates the extent to what people will do to circumvent the intent of the law, thumb their noses at the system and stick it right up the hind end of "Average Joe" trying to play fair and by the rules.

It freakin' sickens me!!!
 
HighWide, didn't 15 go undersubscribed. I thought you could draw that tag as a 2nd choice and still earn a point.

Mike
 
LAST EDITED ON Jul-29-06 AT 06:36PM (MST)[p]You guys know how I feel, I think landowners deserve something, but should give something in return more than just supporting wildlife in the winter.
It will be quite a battle to ever get landowners to give them up now. Millions of dollars will be made off vouchers this year. However, I think that the rule should be that landowners give access to ALL hunters if they're getting vouchers. They're benefiting from public resource, all sportsmen should benefit from their land.
There is definitely the need for more rules in the system. I also feel that there needs to be some sort of audit system to ensure that the landowners participating in the system ARE providing something for wildlife during winter months and for general sportsmen during the hunts.

As far as advertised voucher prices, I think they're ALL awfully expensive---well, for me.

I can't really say much about the brokers because I have helped landowners sell vouchers, so I guess I'm a "Tag Pimp". ???????
Plus, I have used vouchers myself and if I get the same chance this year, I would do it again and not feel bad. If I can get something I can afford (which is VERY little), I won't pass it up. I'm sure many of you wouldn't either.???

I think unit-wide landowner vouchers are here to stay, but hopefully some of the loopholes that allow abuse of the system can be closed. And hopefully the CDOW can require landowners who get the vouchers to provide more to sportsmen.
Unitwide landowner vouchers are just one of those things that has grow so fast that the management and rules surrounding them have not caught up. CDOW probably should have tried to envision these problems before ever going to unitwide vouchers.

Brian Latturner
MonsterMuleys.com
 
I do beleive that this was pointed out to CDOW last year, that this was what would happen if they did it like this and they still when ahead and did so they pretty much told us that the don't care what happens as long as the can sell tags to somebody.
If alot of the hunters who are buying Vouchers would turn the LO in for not allowing access it would sure help the draw cause in the next few years.
 
The problem is, not many of the hunters who get vouchers know who the landowner is. So, they can't turn them into the CDOW. I think there will be some lawsuits between hunters and landowners/brokers this year. Someone is going to sue after they learn that the landowners agreed to allow access and then refused access to the hunter later on.

Hopefully CDOW gets enough pressure that they make changes to the system. I don't think it needs to go away, or that vouchers should be PLO. And, I don't think it will go away, and any fight to do away with unitwide vouchers is a tough fight.
Those vouchers mean millions of dollars statewide now and I can't imagine landowners will give up on them without a hard fight.

Instead of exhausting huge amounts of energy, money, and time trying to do away with them, sportsmen and sportsmens groups should simply be trying to pushing for changes that ensure that only landowners who REALLY deserve them, get them. And, maybe fight to get the percentage lowered, atleast in some areas.

Where's Kent Ingram and the CO Wildlife Federation on this? He used to post all the time.

Brian Latturner
MonsterMuleys.com
 
Yes.... Cabin fever The 2nd season is undersubscribed at this
point! I was hoping to get a 3rd season tag! I live in Utah and our
season coinsides with Colorado 2nd! Besides I do enjoy hunting later
for 2 reasons, it's not quite as hot and there is a better chance of
deer activity! As far as founder is concerned, he & I know each other very well, I don't blame him for taking advantage of a good
situation but believe me it's a totally different scenario when you're the guy on the outside looking in! That hasn't happened to him yet but I'm sure it will soon! I've heard from a number of people and one day they say "but it's the law" and the next day they
see an opportunity to bend the law to their advantage and they jump
right on the bandwagon! Especially if there's a buck to be made!
I guess I shouldn't complain, I know a few guys who have purchased
land owner tags this year and I feel I could better afford it than
they can! In fact I think they're idiots! If I had possession of a
unit 44 tag I'd sell it and go somewhere else! Not because it's not
a good hunt but I'm not a guy to go on a $4000 deer hunt! Many hunters think if they get in that unit there's a giant behind every tree! I've spent enough time in that unit to know it's
real tough to find a giant too! In fact last year on the 6th
day of the 3rd season I stopped at Wendy's in Eagle and the place
was full of complaining hunters from 44. I had a massive 28" 4
point I'd killed in a nearby unit much better than most bucks
taken in 44. Of course I'm not an inches type guy and those odds
do favor other units. I'm happy with a good companion or 2 a
nice adventure and it doesn't hurt to nail a nice buck now & then
either!
 
Founder How are the purchasers of the tags suppose to
find out who the land owners are if the brokers have secured the
shceme to keep them undisclosed. I think I crossed this bridge
earlier today with someone else that explained this loophole had
already been addressed by the brokers and the plan was in place
to keep everything covered up! It entailed the privacy act! It
seems the CDWR is going along with the abuse!
 
It would be interesting to know the history of the voucher
thing! I know it's only been a few years ago landowner vouchers
were worthless. I'll bet there were very few landowners calling
CDWR to join the program! But once they became slightly valuable
I'm sure brokers everywhere have been running to the landowners
offering to make them a great profit! The advertising of the tags
in magazines and on this site as well have driven the prices to
unbelieveable levels! Yes... only 2 or 3 years ago the landowner
was unconcerned about the voucher program,now because some folks
think those same landowners need to be hugely compensated for all
they're doing for the wildlife we have this issue! Like I said, I
have no problem with a person making a few dollars for supporting
wildlife but I think the broker issue is unnecessary! Why not have
a landowner pool listed with the CDWR, the purchaser deals directly
with the landowner, that way you know if you have access or not!
I don't think the brokers would be very happy about that one!
 
I know a landowner in Colorado who gets vouchers and sells them. Last year he sold his extras to the most famous tag broker out there and was lied to about the profit margin and how the transactions would work. The landowner now refuses to sell the tags to that person no matter how much money he could make. He allows access to his land and is true to his word. Not every landowner is working with the tag pimps or refusing access to his property. The landowner told me that this famous tag broker contacted the assessor's office and sent letters to every landowner in the county that would qualify, advised them he would apply and sell the tags for them, they just had to sign on the dotted line. I buy vouchers when I can't draw and I know a lot of you are opposed to this, however not everyone is abusing the system. I think most of you would take advantage as founder says of the situation in you were in my seat. I wondered what kind of trick they would come up with and have seen adds that the vouchers come with the tag fee included, how ingenius. I have my vouchers for this year and they are signed by the landowner, no other identifying information about the property that they were secured for. I guess what I'm trying to say is that not all landowners are violating the system and are playing by the rules.

Rich
 
There have been some very good points made about this issue, and I agree with most all of them on this post , but there is a little thing called "SUPPLY AND DEMAND". Unfortunately the small group of us hunters that are truly concerned about the future of hunting as we know it are only a speck compared to the rest of the hunting world that don"t concern themselves or don't care about tommorrow ,they just want a tag!!, and thats where the problem lies. The CDOW, The Landowners, The Tag Pimp's, The Legislators, and the rest of the Lawmakers ect. are all "In Bed Together". They know and understand the meaning of "SUPPLY AND DEMAND!! and their main goal is to Use that as their tool. These landowner tags that are being sold to hunters are just a big joke!!!. I realize it's hard not to draw a tag!, and miss going hunting, but as long as you play into their hand (by buying a landowner tag)your only digging your own grave!! These landowners don't give a RAT'S A$$ !!! about us HUNTERS!!!, they only care about themselves, just look at the way they have attempted to bypass hunting on their private land. They are nothing but a bunch of crooks!!!.(What ever happened to the good old days , I'll tell you what happened it's called Greed!!!) They had no intention from the start to let hunters hunt their land. I realize there are some reputable landowners out there, but I bet they are few and far between. I realize I don't have the answer to this mess, but as someone said earlier and rest assured there will be some lawsuits over this before it's all said and done. Not only the CDOW, but every other Wildlife Division in every other state think the same way. Their Motto: "YOU PAD MY POCKET ILL PAD YOURS". And Boys!! If you don't think thats not the case , your sadly mistaken. (What has any Wildlife Division ever done for the Hunter that has benifited the hunter????). I know Im Pi$$ing and moaning and groaning, And I realize that many of you know what Im talking about and this is old news, But every time someone buys a landowner tag!! ,especially at these utterly outrageious prices your only feeding the fire. For pete sake man I love hunting as much as the next guy , and I love Colorado probably more than the next guy but lets face it there Elk hunting is average at best, and yes their Mule Deer hunting is awesome but dont'think for a minute it's going to get better because it"s not, the flood gates have been opened and they wont ever shut. Well! Iv'e said enough!! Just letting of some steam!!! "STAND FOR SOMETHING OR DON"T STAND AT ALL" (LTH)
 
I'm with you ITH and I respect you too Lost in Oregon! I have
no problem with a landowner charging a fee if they have something
to offer! A fellow told me earlier it's none of our business if
the land owner makes a dollar or a million dollars, what ever the
demand brings! Some how I have an issue with that! The founder said
he believes landowners should be compensated to build a hunter
land owner relationship! Take a large ranch for example, that doesn't allow hunting but still qualifies for vouchers. How do you
know the money generated doesn't go to anti hunter programs? It's
completely concealed free money! Many ranches don't allow any
hunting, I know of 3 myself in 15 & 44. I know of a large ranch
that has said no to this program in the past but I bet it won't be
much longer with the prices going up til tey'll join in! Utah started a similar program back in the early 90's, at that time to
qualify it took 10,000 contiguous acres (at least you do have to hunt entirely on private property) but it started slowly, once the
money started to show it rapidly spread! Now there's very limited public hunting on private acreage! I hope you guys that feel the
way I do about this issue will write to the division and voice your
concern! I know it seems hopeless but if you don't do it no one will! I'm soon too old to hunt but some of you must have a lot of
years left, don't let'm beat you!
 
I am surprised that so much of the blame on this issue is being directed at the DOW and nothing is being said about the Wildlife Commission. The WC sets all of the rules that the DOW has to enforce in the state. The WC is appointed by the Governor. The way the WC is set up favors commercial interests such as Landowners and Guides/Outfitters. They have the lobbying power and utilized that power in getting the gov to select people to the commission.
Only recently has the regular Joe hunters in Colorado started paying attention to the ways of the WC and some of the tag hoarding and money grabbing has been averted. Some proposals by the Landowner groups have been either stopped or seriously curtailed in the last years. Recently, landowners wanted 35% of the tags to be set aside for them, up from 15%. Fortunately this proposal was defeated because hunters were willing to show up at the meetings and have their voices heard. Unfortunately, the landowners and their gang on the WC were able to modify their proposal and put a new name tag on it and call it a "pilot program" where they have stolen more tags in the hardest units to draw in so they can sell them to the highest bidder while allowing "reasonable access" to other hunters for antlerless tags. We as a group have to monitor the WC and make the time to be there when they meet and let them know that commercialization of the hunting opportunities well eventually lead to less participation and eventually the demise of hunting just as the aristocracy in Europe are the only ones that hunt.
Some of the commission members are hopeless to heaing the concerns of non commercial interests. They are firmly in the pockets of the landowners, guides and outfitters, CCA. etc. We as a group need to focus our attention on the members that may be willing to listen to us as a group. We also need to let the next gov know our feelings about appointments to the commission and make sure that only landowner concerns are not the only ones addressed when making an appointment.
Things aren't as bad as they could be and things aren't as good as they could be. If we keep an eye on the schedule http://wildlife.state.co.us/WildlifeCommission/ and go to the meetings that we can and also send emails or make phone calls to WC members when these items are on the agenda.
 
Let's see, it should work like this:

Landowners have to sign the voucher. Even if we don't know where their ranch is and the DOW won't reveal it, the DOW does know who they are. If they require you to sign a "contract" in violation of the law, simply take your voucher and the contract to the DOW and file a complaint. They can't refuse to file a complaint, can they? The offending landowners should not be able to get vouchers next year since they violated the law.

And spread the word to landowners any way you can that if they do this, they will not be able to get vouchers in the future.

Worth a try anyway.

txhunter58

venor, ergo sum (I hunt, therefore I am)
 
The draw odds would be 15% better if they did away with voucher system. I feel that they should give the landowners tags which can only be used on their land.
 
Excellent point! TXhunter58 I do believe that would do it!
WhatI would personally like to see happen is exactly that, only
the purchaser of the voucher goes ahead and hunts the unit the
tag is good for, he's done his part in good faith! Then near the
end of the hunt make the complaint and file a law suit! (It could be
worth it some of these vouchers are selling for thousands of dollars) Mainly to force the illegals to refund the voucher fees!
I also think this problem could be solved within a week or so, if
the CDWR or whoever is in charge simply sent word to every land
owner enrolled in the program warning them, if access is not granted
they face prosecution! Can you imagine the scrambling the Brokers
would be doing trying to satisfy both, the land owners they have deceived and the purchasers they have sold to! Keep in mind the
brokers nor the landowners who knowingly are participating in this
practice should have any qualms about a client taking the same
deceptive actions! WE'RE ALL OUT TO MAKE A BUCK, RIGHT? Heck I'd
do it in a heartbeat, but as luck would have it, I'd be the only
guy they grant access to! LOL
 
Your right about the scrambling you should post this on all the sporting web site that you know, If those who buy the voucher would do just that hunt and then file a complaint they would do themself and the rest of the hunters a great service, I like the idea that the draw odd would jump up by 15% without the welfare tag system. Rancher are getting these tags to cut down on the damage that the herds do to thier ranches BUT then they would let you hunt the said ranches, Just don't make sense if I was(and I have been) in their shoes I would do what I had to cut the numbers down. The old ways and the new are clashing again, If they make it a deal that you had a tag for the ranch they HAD to let you hunt that ranch you would see less tags for those ranches that don't want you there, so that tells me that they are not having that big of a problem with the herds.Ranchers who don't use the system as it was designed are just as guiltly as those(brokers) who are jumping thru the loophole.
 
Here's another 2 cents from me.

The CDOW may not provide a person who buys a voucher with the name of the property owner, however, they can trace who (what property) your license came from.
If a person with a license calls the CDOW and (provdes license #)lets them know that they have been denied access (whether by landwowner or broker), the CDOW should kick that ranch out of the program. The CDOW should be able to track a license number back to the voucher and ranch.

Regardless of secondary agreements with landowners or brokers, a person who buys a voucher should let the CDOW know if they have been denied access. Landowners do need to play by the rules.

Colorado folks should be fighting the battle RIGHT NOW that would require the CDOW to provide the name of the landowner for a the license. Vouchers have the name on them, the license should too! Or atleast a hunter should be able to call CDOW and get that information.

Brian Latturner
MonsterMuleys.com
 
Small potatoes on this issue. We all know the REAL value of these vouchers is the fact that they are valid for the entire unit. I believe that most people couldn't give a darn if they had access to the property to which it was issued other than a few isolated instances. Most people that buy vouchers aren't going to get involved in this fight because I believe they want to keep taking advantage of this "loophole" in the system and "buy" their way onto public land in premium draw units on an annual basis.

The access for voucher purchasers was the only way the DOW was able to address this issue and try and rein in the abuses without statutory change in the state legislature. There was some hope that this language in the law stating landowners give "reasonable access" to hunters would be a dis-incentive to those landowner who were only in it for money. Not when some vouchers are going for 6 to 8 grand!!! You have to raise quite a few cows and cut quite a bit of hay to make that kind of quick cash.

This is but a small battle in a large war of commercialization of a public hunting opportunity.
 
You're right Buckspy, "Unitwide" is what makes the vouchers valuable, not the private land access.

I guess I just don't see that you will ever be able to do away with unitwide vouchers, therefore enforcing the current rules and creating new rules to make the system work as best that it can is what I see as the only option.

I have a question, are you trying to draw a hard line and do away with unitwide landowner vouchers all together?
OR, are you looking at options to just regulate them better?
What are you all trying to accomplish?

Brian Latturner
MonsterMuleys.com
 
No Offense BUCKSPY but I believe you're missing the point!
You're right most purchasers are not concerned about the land access
but this is the issue you and I use to put a stop to the program! If
landowners and brokers are deceitfully selling these vouchers it's
against the LAW! And it's the general public as well as the misinformed purchasers opportunity to correct the problem! Those of
us that care about hunting and the abuse of this program have an
opportunity to force the hand of CDWR or Whoever is in charge of
this program right now! I personally believe many landowners themselves have no idea this practice is even going on! Some landowners have just been contacted by mail from brokers assuring
them they'll take care of everything, all they have to do is collect
money! We have a similar program here in Utah called WCMU areas, they
were introduced to improve hunter-landowner relationships! Depending on which side of the fence you're on they're good or bad! 10 paying
customers get to hunt for every single public hunter. (They do hunt
entirely on private ground) That means on 10000 acre ranch, over 15
square miles there may be 20 paying hunters to allow 2 public hunters! (just an example) but in the early 90's these units
blossomed and eliminated thousands of average public hunters
that had been paying reasonable trespass fees in the past! Now,
there may be an argument that these units have been wildlife
productive,(we have an excellent Elk herd with giant bulls) but
most hunters only get to hunt them once in a lifetime!
 
Just a couple of suggestions to this problem:
If you dont want to buy a voucher DONT.
To come on here and just bit## about the price and how unfair it is b.s.. Stay home.
All the Utards and Texans stay at home so us Coloradoans can draw a tag.
Utah has the most screwed up draw system in the west, dont tell us how to manage CO. Stay home!
Maybe we should go to 10% allocation of tags to non resisdents and then you will have stay home.
 
lth....
"Not only the CDOW, but every other Wildlife Division in every other state think the same way. Their Motto: "YOU PAD MY POCKET ILL PAD YOURS". And Boys!! If you don't think thats not the case , your sadly mistaken. (What has any Wildlife Division ever done for the Hunter that has benifited the hunter????)."


Most of your statement I agree with but this is totally wrong!!Sure money has to do with everything but the CDOW does work for the hunter. WHO benefits?
Do the additions of late seasons (4th rifle)in 54, 55, 551 and others BENEFIT the hunter by creating more hunting opportunity or is this simply a money issue as well? Any SWA purchased has to be huntable or CDOW will not buy/lease it. How about the new landowner pilot program in unit 10 (?others?)?


Anyway I attended the northeast colorado SAG meeting in June in Loveland and was impressed at the CDOW's response to sportmens concerns. They do care! Like others have said, if you dont like it change it! I have not looked into the landowner voucher thing much but it doesnt sound too good and needs some change. I guarantee if enough people get together and DO SOMETHING about it there will be change that will benefit hunters.

Jeff
 
Peanut,
there is bull tags or either sex(1 of the 2)tags for unit 10 in case you missed those hunt codes.
YOu are right about keeping tabs on the wildlife commission. They tried to slip in a shed antler season in the last vote in Fort Collins but for some reason (I would like to think it was the emails in oppostion to a shed season I sent them) it was struck from the proposed regulations so it will NOT go into effect!!
Jeff
 
cohntrNob, You're an idiot.

Maybe you can't draw a tag because the tag you could be drawing is being pimped out in some landowner voucher scheme.

You are one of those guys that Buckspy was talking about, you have no clue on whats really going on or you would be against the whole Unit wide landowner voucher thing. Unless of course you're one of the guys selling and making money off them or you're one of the few who can afford to buy them. Personally I think it's neither, you're just clueless.

If you really did put in for the draws in other states, then you would know that there are a few other states with worse draw systems than Utah.
 
As stated above, the main problem is with supply and demand. Most NR hunters are being told they are second class citizens and are lucky to get to hunt on Federal Land at all. The more the States regs push the NR out of the picture the more of this type of Tag program you will see. The money has to come from somwhere.

The sad part of this is that all it does is push the cost of hunting up higher and higher especially for NR.

shotgunjim: I agree with you. cohntrbob is an idiot.
 
WOW cohntrbob You ARE an idiot! This thread was
designed to help Colorado residents fight this emerging problem!
I have no intention of buying a landowner tag! (whether I can afford it or not) STUPID! You don't have a clue as to what's going on and
when you're left facing the problem in the end, it's hunters like yourself that deserve it! HOO! RAH! I don't have many years left, so believe me this scenario won't hurt me! It's fools like you that
will pay in the end! I'll bet you have nauseated other concerned
sportsmen at your ridiculous comments! YOU NEED TO JUST SIT BACK AND
READ POSTS FROM OTHERS, KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT AND TRY TO LEARN SOMETHING!
 
About finding who the owner is, most every county website I've ever looked at allows you to look up who the landowner is if you have location information on the property. Or if you know the landowners name, you can look up what property they own. With a little research and effort I don't think it would be that hard to figure out who owns what in x unit. There are only so many people who own land in each unit. But then again, I've never had this problem so I can't be certain you could do it, it just seems very likely that you could.
 
I like some of what you guys are saying but there are some points in which go untold. In many units in CO there are undersuscribed seasons that people could draw with second choice and still have a chance at a nice buck if they hunt hard enough. If you dont want to hunt then dont buy a tag. If you have a problem with signing a waiver then dont buy the tag. The DOW sets the numbers on tags and manage for that amount. The real problem is not the tags going for 4000.00 a piece (supply and demand) its the units where the landowner draws 20 vouchers with only 300 acres. Whats wrong with this is that these tags could be given out in the general draw but are saved for the landowners. Then the tag sellers will turn around and sell that tag to non-resident who knows nothing about that unit for an ungodly amount. The landowner would have to then let 10-20 guys hunt on 300 acres during the same season (not enough room). The public could use these tags as second choices. I also think that many people could care less about not hunting the private land in these undersuscribed units because the land is no better than the public. Where you get into problems with this law is the (big name/high dollar tags). As a resident of CO I can only hunt elk in 61 every 8-9 and its going up but someone who has the big money can hunt it every year they pay the 8000.00 voucher fee. If we as hunters wouldnt pay it we wouldnt have the problem. Just some of my thoughts
 
Good point! Another flaw in the landowner system is the "Leftover" draw system for landowners. They should only receive one application for X amount of acreage, NO leftover application. That right there would place LOTS of landowner allocated tags back into the general public draw. The VAST majority of landowner vouchers that landowners are receiving are coming via the "leftover" draw. There are only a few hunt codes with more landowners than landowner allocated tags. MOST landowners are getting EXTRA vouchers via the leftover draw.

Again, I support landowners getting something, but there needs to be more rules in place that limit the number of vouchers a landowner can get, a property audit to ensure private land qualifies, access on the private land to ALL hunters, etc. I say we give them benefit for supporting wildlife, but don't let them take advantage.

It may be unforunate that so much money is changing hands simply for the opportunity to hunt a unit with a few more trophy bucks, but it's here and it will be next to impossible to get things back to the way they were 20 years ago. Everyone wants what they think is rightfully there's, sportsmen and landowners alike.

Hunting will never be like it was in the past when landowners would open gates and let you hunt their land for free, or even for a small fee. When you pull up in your $50,000 truck, with $6,000 4-wheeler, $4000 worth of optics & gun, you can't expect them to jump out of their old broken down pickup in their jeans full of holes and open the gate for you to go hunt their land for free.

Brian Latturner
MonsterMuleys.com
 
Some good posts on here, but I see the issues getting muddied a bit. Some key points to remember:

First, the Wildlife Commission sets the regulations to which the DOW must adhere. In theory, the Commission is supposed to be responsive to a number of interests including sportsmen, landowners and the public at large, but the balance of power on the current Commission has clearly shifted to private interests. There have been a number of news articles about open collusion among some of the Commission members in this regard, much of which has centered around the voucher issue over the past year. This landowner voucher beast has gotten WAY out of hand, and as Buckspy mentioned, several of us have been diligently working to implement changes to make this system fair to all parties and, more importantly, enforceable. Others on this post have mentioned one important issue, which is that most hunters are simply not aware of the system, nor the abuses which are occuring.

Besides lack of awareness, some other key problems are:

1. Vouchers issued to private landowners are transferrable indefinitely and are valid on a unit-wide basis, which vastly inflates their market value.

2. 15% of all licenses available in a unit are set aside as private vouchers, and any leftover vouchers within that system are given only to private landowners--no leftover "private" tags are ever put back into the public's hands. This is how a handful of landowners can end up with the lion's share of vouchers in a unit. And this is also why public draw odds continue to detiorate--i.e. when overall tags are cut, the vouchers still get 15% of whatever is out there, regardless of the number of 1st-choice landowner applications.

3. "Supply and Demand" arguments are completely invalid in this case--the Wildlife Commission "created" the voucher supply and they can just as easily delete it and put everything back in a public draw if enough outcry from the public is heard. Further, if vouchers were limited for use on the private land which "earned" the voucher, rather than being valid unit-wide, the perceived value of these tags would plummet and the supply and demand curve would shift considerably.

4. The DOW does NOT provide information to the public concerning which landowners received tags. They never have and they never will as long as the "privacy act" is on the law books. In fact, the DOW no longer provides sportsmen names and contact information to the public or marketing agencies either. Therefore, the rule requiring landowners who receive vouchers to provide "reasonable public access" is an absolute joke. It is totally and completey unenforceable, and every DOW officer out there will tell you so. Unfortunately, it will take a lawsuit by a sportsman who actually buys a voucher from a known landowner source, who is also denied access to that land, to solve this issue. The average sportsman has no way of knowing what landowners got tags so they can even ask permission to hunt or get access through the private land, and even if they do manage to obtain that peice of information, there remains the problem of defining "reasonable public access." The landowner can allow his cousin or brother to go through, call it "reasonable" and deny everyone else the opportunity. There are absolutely no checks and balances to the current system, which is stacked heavily in favor of the landowner.

5. Finally, Brian hit a good point about land qualifying for the voucher program as well. Currently, there are no regulations on the books that ensure that any land enrolled in the voucher program porvides wildlife habitat of any kind, let alone for the species in question. The program guidelines state that the land must be "inhabited for the greater portion of the year by the species for which a license preference is requested." However, there are no requirements for field inspections or reviews by local game wardens to ensure that this is the case. Basically, anyone with 160 acres of land can enroll, even if it's a dump, junkyard or a Walmart parking lot--don't laugh, there are units with urban development on winter range that do qualify!

I'm sure this debate will continue and no solution will be easy. But hopefully people can come to terms with the fact that the existing system is terribly flawed at best, and certainly not in the best interests of sportsmen or wildlife. Get involved and let your voice be heard where it counts--at the Wildlife Commission and the Colorado State Legislature.
 
Good stuff sneak. You seem to know more about what CO sportsmen are doing about this than I. Can you tell us what the different sportsmens groups are trying to do about the landowner voucher stuff?
Are they trying to do away with them altogether? Pushing for new rules? What???

Brian Latturner
MonsterMuleys.com
 
SNEAK, Some good points but I will disagree on the supply and demand portion. When NR are being told they will take a back seat at every turn on Federal Land then there is a Demand for these Tags because they do not descriminate (sp) against NR. They will sell to the highest bidder. If you as a NR are being told you may never draw a Tag in the general draw, but you can buy a voucher and hunt now then that's what some if not most are going to do.

If you put them back into the general draw then most of the people drawing them will be Res and the DOW would rather a NR have the Tag at 10X the income. It's simply math.
 
All I wonder is where the heck were all of you last fall and winter!

At 4 Commision meetings, 2 SAG meetings, and 1 day worth of meetings at the capital, not to mention the hours and hours emailing every member of the legislature in the state, not one person other than myself, Buckspy, and Sneak ever brought up the issue of landowner vouchers. Get Involved!!!! If you dont know who to email, email everyone! Showing up at a commision meeting and testifying is worth a thousand emails.

Founder,
If LO vouchers are never restricted to private land, there will only be ONE reason, and that is because guys like Garth Carter, and Alan Pennington are fighting for their side 24/7/365, and guys on my side get pissed and do nothing.

Peashooter
 
cohntrbob, It's obvious that you don't like NR hunters and that you have taken what Myself and others have been talking about personally.(even when it doesn't pretain to the topic at hand!) It purely is our opinions right! or wrong! The issue at hand has nothing to do with what you're talking about!!. There are a lot of issues that we as hunters are going to dissagree about but that ok!.Nothing say's we can't agree to dissagree, but when someone like you who apparently has "NO RESPECT" for his fellow hunters starts this "CRAP" we all lose!. You are purely looking at each situation from a personal standpoint(WITHOUT SEEING THE WHOLE PICTURE!!!).I personally feel for each and every hunter who shows his frustration simply because I know he or she has a passion for this sport. We all know the system's are flawed!(That's what so frustrating). You are a good example of why we as hunters are fighting an uphill battle! And yes I am a "TEXAN" and I welcome any hunter to my state,as I would hope they would welcome me to theirs. Hunters didn't make these messes!! In my opinon The system's did! (once again! purely my opinon). I will leave you with one thought: DON'T LET YOU ALLIGATOR MOUTH OVERLOAD YOU HUMMINGBIRD! A$$!!! (LTH)
 
Peashooter
Amen to that! There were only about 15 folks at the SAG meeting in Colorado Springs a couple of weeks ago, and half were DOW employee's. At the License Allocation meeting in the Springs there were all of 3 folks that weren't ranchers, outfitters, or DOW buerocrats from Denver that wanted to keep the status quo.

All these meetings were advertised in the papers and I told everyone I know that hunts (20+ folks), yet nobody comes. All Colorado residents care about is being able to buy OTC bull tags at wal-mart!

They (Coloradoans)wont do a thing until Elk licenses go limited IMO
 
Peashooter!,I personaly want to thank you and guys like Buckspy, Sneak, and anyone else who has taken the extra time and effort to voice their opions and represent us hunters. It has not gone unnoticed. Whatever the issues,I may not always agree, but it's always easier to TALK THE TALK THAN WALK THE WALK, BUT you guys from what Iv'e noticed WALK THE WALK. I know i'm a outsider (NR )but I still appreciate a "GOOD STAND" doesn't matter from what side. THANK'S AGAIN (LTH).
 
Peashooter - I don't think Garth and Alan are your problem. The day will come when the CO landowners figure out a way to sell those vouchers without a broker, just as many Utah landowners have, and you will still be in the same boat.
They are not the problem, I guess it's just easy to blame them???? If you're placing blame, I think it should be with the Colorado Wildlife Commission & CDOW.

Garth, Alan, and hundreds of other guys are just trying to help hunters find hunts to go on. Colorado landowner vouchers are a good option, plain and simple. I suggest CO vouchers as a good option to people all the time if they can afford them.

You are right that those who benefit from unitwide vouchers (particularly landowners) are going to fight to keep what Colorado gave them. No different from Utah, our landowners do the same, as do the conservation groups who get conservation tags.

Sportsmen are in a tough position, because we have to fight the battle for free, while the landowners use money made from tag sells to fight their battle. Makes it tough for sure. Don't give up though.

Although I think landowners should get something (in the form of an incentive to help support our interests---wildlife), I don't care that much. Heck, I might be wrong. Maybe they should get nothing and should support our wildlife for free. You guys know better what landowners over there do for your wildlife than anyone else. Go with your gut.

I just think compromising and developing a system that works for both sportsmen and landowners will get you further than drawing a hardline and trying to take it all back.

Brian Latturner
MonsterMuleys.com
 
The freedom to own land in this country should come with a sense of stewardship to do what's right for the land and the wildlife that call it home.

Old west entitlement mentality landowners are dinosaurs in todays world. These vouchers are just another example of private land interests and landowners wanting a bigger piece of the pie. The cowboy in the rusty pick-up is the minority in the voucher world and many of these vouchers come from wealthy landowners looking to capitalize on the system.

Voucher brokers just wanting to help out hunters is a B.S. response considering the vast amounts of money exchanged and the hugely inflated tag prices. Its disingenuous to suggest vouchers resellers have these altruistic intentions when some are making tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars by exploiting a loophole in the current law. The path these vouchers have taken was not the original intent of the system and the way it was set up.
 
Brian,
Good reply. I agree with you that the blame should be saddled onto the Commission. The guys on the ground for the DOW overwhelmingly agree that LO tags should not be unit wide, but they are not allowed to have an opinion by the Division, and can only attend a Commission meeting if invited by the Commission. The main problem with the Commission is that they are not held accountable to do their job by anyone. At several of their meetings they told me that their hands were tied on this issue because it requires a statutory change which can only be done by the legislature. When Sneak and I went to the Capital and talked with several Senators and Representatives, they told me that this was false, and that the Commission had every right to make a regulatory change regarding this issue. I'm sure you've heard the saying "the squeaky wheel gets the grease", up to this point the only real squeaky wheel has been the tag pimps, landowners, and outfitters pushing for more LO allocation and freedom, as well as more PLO tags. The commission makes many decisions based on these guys putting constant pressure on them, which is what guys like Garth have the time, money and resources to do.

I understand your hard line argument. I am not advocating for the elimination of the LO voucher program, I simply believe that if the voucher is redeemed by anyone outside of the immediate family of the person which it was issued to, it should become private land only.

My main issue with Garth is his constant effort to find the loopholes, and exploit them to the fullest in my back yard. Last fall my parents recieved a letter from him explaining that there was good money in landowner vouchers, and that he could take care of everything for them, and they would never have to let anyone on their property. The interesting part is that they only own 4 acres! Last time I checked you have to have atleast 160 acres to qualify. I just think he is a terrible ambassador for our sport, and he is having contact with many more people than I ever will. To him its all about the money, for me it has nothing to do with money.

Peashooter
 
What about taking responsibility For your career ar where you
live! I understand that landowners sometimes share their land with
wildlife and have done throughout history! But what about hardships
others of us have? If I live in a work in a big city and have to
drive 50 miles each way to work and pay $10 a day to park my car,
nobody reimburses me for my hardship! That is the career I have
chosen and those hardships transfer along with it! If the city comes
in with a new curb and gutter I have to pay for it whether I want to
or not! If a landowner can't survive with wildlife maybe he should
consider some thorofare to the public land he has landlocked so the
game can be harvested! If he still can't make it maybe he should
change jobs like anyone of us would have to do!
I'd like to have someone convince me that building a sportsman
landowner relationship (through landowner tags) is going to help
public land hunters! When the herd increases the land owner is going
to the board and ask for more public tags, cause they already have
enough money! Yeah right!
I'm not opposed to a landowner being reimbursed in some way
for helping with wildlife! But I am offended at those that say this program is anything but a scam and try to insult my intelligence insisting it's not!
 
FOUNDER You may be right about the landowner not opening the
gate to his property for free, but this issue isn't about him opening his gate! We're driving 15-20 miles or more out around his
property to hunt on public land that he has his hand out asking for
my wallet! I understand the Landowner gets 15% of the tags? So that
means where I was trying to hunt, unit 15 I believe there were 1200
tags for the 3rd season! So, that means 180 of those go to Landowners, right? The broker I contacted quoted me at $950 each,
thats $171000 for the 3rd season alone! How much of that money do
you think makes it to the Landowner? Does anyone think if Landowners
were offered $1000 per year to allow (access only) to public land
they would take it? I don't think so! I think most Landowners are
(or were) perfectly happy with things the way they were! They own
a few hundred acres, but actually haves hundreds or thousands
controlled!
 
BCHunter:

I agree that there is Demand for these tags, but what I was getting at is the Supply side. The Commission controls supply, so if they shut off the Vouchers and go back to a straight drawing, demand for "these tags" simply doesn't matter. But you are right about the DOW wanting those higher NR tag fees, and the brokers and landowners are the ones really making a killing since the transferrable voucher prices are several orders of magnitude above any state fee ever conceived.
 
Founder:

To my knowledge, no one has advocated eliminating the voucher system completely, but many have proposed a lot of creative changes to bring the system back into line with the original intent of the program and make it fair to both sportsman and landowners. I mention fairness to "landowners" specifically because there are a surprising number of landowners who are unhappy with the current system. This is because the way the program is set up, a handful of big outfits can control the lion's share of vouchers in a given unit, leaving the smaller guys out in the cold.

As for support, the Colorado Wildlife Federation was pushing hard for reforms to the system this spring. The Colorado Outfitters Association was on the fence, since about half their members benefit from the current system and half do not, so they never took a stance. The Colorado Sportsman's Caucus held hearings on the issue with the vast majority of testimony calling for significant changes to the program. I'm not aware of any other organized groups taking a position.

I've found that in all the SAG meetings I've attended, most sportsmen simply don't understand how the voucher system works, nor are they aware of the many abuses taking place.

The problem is that the Wildlife Commission has the ability to make changes, but is unwilling to do so because of the heavily-skewed landowner/broker influence in the current Commission. The State legislature can also mandate a change to the Commission and its workings, but any proposed change to the Commission must clear the Ag/natural resources committee which oversees all the Commission's activities, and you're dealing with a lot of the same players and political influence in that committee. To date, sportsmen simply haven't mobilized to the extent necessary to become the squeakiest wheel on the wagon. Until we do, we all lose.
 
This is a good post and I can see how some of you can get very frustrated over the high prices of vouchers, but I haven't heard anyone complain about the UT elk and deer vouchers that have been sky high for many years. $15,000-$20,000 is common for elk and the successful Pausagunt deer minimum bids are usually over $6,000. I would be willing to bet that these land owner vouchers in CO were started in part because of the outfitters that wanted to get vouchers for their clients to hunt the leased land. That's probably at least one reason. Did the landowners know that they'd go so high??? I doubt it. If any of you were landowners and had an opportunity to sell some vouchers for $5,000 each, would you decline??? I doubt it. Is Garth Carter to blame for trying to capitalise on these vouchers?? He sent letters to landowners.... so why didn't anyone else??? I have heard Garth described as a virus that attaches itself to a very viable host until he sucks it dry and then moves on. I'm sure some here would agree, but I wish like he!! I was in his position. I remember when he started out with his little newsletter for $100 per year. I've also seen others try to do the same thing and fail. He surely is a good business man if nothing else. Have any of you that are complaining ever used a landowner voucher to hunt even if it was free or very cheap??? I have..so I definitely won't complain. When I can't afford to get one (which will be real soon) I will be very bummed. Hunting is changing quickly to private land and/or high fence. This fighting between hunters will most definitely be the demise of hunting. We are way too selfish to let it end any other way. CO will soon be very tough to draw because of demand so you might as well face it. There is only so many good hunting places to go around. Sorry I have no solution because I don't see one. Get your priorities straight (or crooked) and get out and enjoy the upcoming fall season. Best, Steve
 
(PLO) tags have a purpose when they where created by the DOW, and that purpose is being exploited big time. these tags where created to disperse hunting pressure back onto the public land so herds could be kept in check. these tags prices are going to continue to rise because colorado is cutting back on non resident hunters to keep the resident hunters happy. non residents want to hunt just like me and there willing to pay for these tags so they can keep hunting too! It could be a lot worst and we could be in the good old days when you where lucky to kill a 2 point.(10 yrs ago) everybody wanted better quality and know we are getting it and with quality up goes the prices!! Anyways PLO tags have been defined by the DOW and what they are for and sooner or later they will deal with the situation, Hpefully soon!!!
 
5point - You made a good point that I personally was confused on, and that is with the PURPOSE of LO vouchers. Their prupose, as defined in the statute, is;
TO ENCOURAGE PRIVATE LANDOWNERS TO PROVIDE HABITAT FOR WILDLIFE, DISCOURAGE THE HARBORING OF GAME ANIMALS ON PRIVATE LANDS DURING PUBLIC HUNTING SEASONS, AND RELIEVE HUNTING PRESSURE ON PUBLIC LANDS BY INCREASING GAME HUNTING ON PRIVATE LANDS

A friend ripped my butt tonight because some of what I posted was based on my belief that the vouchers were in part given to landowners so that they would allow access to their lands. I had stated that all landowners should allow access if part of the program. HOWEVER, the statute pointed out to me that the vouchers are for providing habitat and for landowners to be able to hunt their land or provide vouchers for someone to hunt their land to help keep game from seeking out private land and not leaving.

I still think the CDOW needs to make the statute and the rules more clear for those of us who are debating this stuff. I'm not a lawyer! I just assumed (my bad) that vouchers were given partly for allowing access to the general public. I don't think that should be the case based on the statute. If it is, then they need to be more clear to all.
BUT, the new rules this year imply that the landowner needs to provide access.

This paragraph defines what the vouchers are for. Obviously someone felt that landowners contribute to the system.

THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY FINDS THAT IT IS NECESSARY TO PROVIDE AN INCENTIVE-BASED SYSTEM TO LANDOWNERS TO PROVIDE HABITAT FOR WILDLIFE THROUGH A HUNTING LICENSE ALLOCATION PROGRAM THAT ALLOWS HUNTERS ACCESS TO THE STATE'S WILDLIFE UNDER THE COOPERATIVE CONTROL OF THE PRIVATE LANDOWNER

Brian Latturner
MonsterMuleys.com
 
when you guys find a solution for colorado's voucher program. lets try to apply it to NM private land tag problems!!!

money and politics make change hard for the sportsman...
 
GRAYBEARD All I'm asking is, if a Landowner offers a tag
for sale or for free it is his responsibility to provide access
to the acreage he used to qualify for the tag! Probably in most
cases the purchaser would never trespass on that acreage, but it
should be up to him to decide! Isn't that fair? How can that be
such a problem? Unless these Landowners are trying to take
advantage of the unknowing sportsman! Why would a legitimate
Landowner put up such a fuss? Some folks on this site have tried
to view it from the Landowners side, but I think it's very hard to
defend when they say ( NO Trespassing & No Access) Now feel sorry
for me, I'm really struggling financially! Now give me your money
and go hunt your own property!
 
Actually Bud, I think I agree with you on about every aspect. You bet the landowners should be kicked out of the system if they are not allowing access. I would like to see someone file a lawsuit against the whole program (broker/landowner/CDOW) to find out where the law really stands on it. It's simple for the CDOW to claim a landowner abusing the system will be kicked out but how will they ever know?? About the money, I'll give you every extra dollar that I have to go towards your voucher. The problem is, I doubt it would be enough to buy a roll of TP. I didn't think there was anyone tighter than Brian, but he must have learned it somewhere??? You need to change your priorities to match his....Best, Steve
 
In post 52 of the "Colorado Land Owner Rip Off" Brian copied some language from the state statute that somewhat defines the original intents of the landowner voucher program.

I certainly empathise with non-residents who would like to take advantage of the opportunity to hunt some places in Colorado on a more regular basis. Its limited and its coveted and increasingly desirable. I understand that those who have purchased, traded for, or garnered vouchers through various means would like to see the system stay as is.

We have seen what has happened in just 3 years of this increased exploitation of this system and have also seen what happens when many of the working class hunters who have bought vouchers are now being priced out because of the free market economics that drive the prices up.

Aside from one's selfish interests in getting an opportunity to hunt because of the voucher purchase, are we as hunters really better off because of them? Is the idea of your wildife on your public land being offered up for sale to the highest bidder really what our hunting heritage is about? When you finally draw a tag are you comfortable with the idea that the guy on the other mountain "bought" his opportunity to compete with you indirectly when you spent 5-10 years applying in the draw?

I have trouble thinking any of us really and honestly believe that a "yes" answer is the right one to any of those questions.

There are plenty of other instances in life where wealth and money have their perks but having the priviledge to hunt on public land should not ever be a priviledge to bought, sold and bartered. It really and truely goes against the very foundation of America's hunting heritage.
 
Mike, I think it is against our (hunters) better interests to have hunting be exploited more by the wealthy, but what can one do about it. Should a person that may have a connection give up his/her opportunity so someone else can grab it up?? I will hunt CO every year I can in whatever unit I can draw waiting for a better tag simply because CO does a better job of managing their deer. Another tangent here could be the fact that we need wealthy hunters to help protect our heritage. The guys that can afford these expensive tags are the same guys that put gobs of money into organizations that keep hunting alive. Of course they are the minority but they are very much needed. The anti-hunting orgs would melt hunting opportunities if they could in any way possible. But, at the same time it is the wealthy hunters that are somewhat responsible for changing fair chase into not such fair chase by buying ranches with high fences or otherwise funding these places. I wish I knew the solution or solutions but I see our public land hunting "heritage" going down the drain. What can be done to stop the change??? I hate to see this change come about, but I don't know what to do. Maybe an "heritage hunters" group needs to be started. It will have to be organized, funded, and grown by us reguler Joe's. The biggest problem I see is hunter apathy. It runs rampant through the community. What can be done???
 
To be honest, at 34 years old, there have been public land tags sold to the highest bidder since the day I was old enough to begin hunting. So, I didn't experience a time when it was much different, other than people have more money now, there are more of the tags, and people spend more on them!!!!

Buckspy - Have you ever used a landowner voucher? I know some people who are completely against them now, have in the past and would still to this day if it were affordable "TO THEM". BUT, "affordable" is different to everyone.
Those people didn't oppose the vouchers when they were getting them!!!!!

I certainly couldn't and wouldn't buy a voucher at the prices I see advertised, but heck, can't afford to go to Hawaii either, but some people can and do!

I personally don't look at vouchers simply as something that allows a guy with more money than me to BUY more opportunity. I would feel the same as you if I did. HOWEVER, I instead look at them simply as funding offered by CDOW to compensate landowners for tolerating and feeding the game during the year. Without them doing that, there would be less game and less tags for everyone. HECK, CDOW could auction them and disributed the money fairly and I'm OK with that.

There are many private ranches in Colorado that feed hundred of elk year round. One is right in our stomping grounds. 100+ head of elk feed in those fields all winter, many even in the summer. That rancher could easily drive out there and run them off this land every morning and force that herd to find food on public ground. That WOULD cause the elk numbers to decrease.
This is happening all over the state of Colorado. If we as sportsmen continually ask those landowners to support that wildlife every year for free, eventually they ARE going to run those herds off. Those elk eat what their cattle would be eating.

If every landowner in the state of Colorado went to the CDOW and said that they would no longer allow that wildlife to eat all the graze, trample their springs, etc. CDOW would be forced lower population objectives statewide----LESS TAGS. That would mean less tags for us sportsmen, plus landowners would still hate our guts for screwing them. And I think sportsmen NEED cattlemen, farms, and ranchers on our side in this world for the larger fights that are bound to come about.

I WILL SAY, I think there needs to be repairs to the entire CO landowner system to make it fair between landowners and other landowners, and sportsmen. There are some landowners who have 160 acres and hit the jackpot in the leftover draws and after selling vouchers are compensated $10k to $15k a year, while neighboring ranches (sometimes larger) draw less tags and are compensated far less. NOT FAIR between landowners. ALSO, at some point, a landowner IS compensated fairly for their support of wildlife. Anything they make above and beyond that is unfair to sportsmen.
$15k for 160 aces, not fair IMO, because the landowner got "Leftover" LO tags, that would have gone to the public.

My whole point is, I think there needs to be improvments to the system, but I don't think they should be done away with. UNITWIDE vouchers provide landowners compensation for wildlife that they support and they should remain.
Private land vouchers have already been tried and failed.

PLUS, the folks fighting for landowner vouchers to remain, are the same ones who fight for ME as a non-resident. They fight against those who want to decrease our percentage of tags to 10% or less. So, I support them on both issues.

Brian Latturner
MonsterMuleys.com
 
Buckspy - Is the system being exploitated? YES, by a few. But, rules can be enforced, new rules can be added, and changes can make the system much better.

No one saw what has happen coming and the proper rules were never put in place. It can be fixed without landowners or sportsmen getting the shaft.

PS - You asked, "Is the idea of your wildife on your public land being offered up for sale to the highest bidder really what our hunting heritage is about?"
Outfitters have been offering wildlife on our public land for sale to the highest bidder for a LONG TIME. They charge as much as they can, based on demand, no different than vouchers. They hunt the SAME wildlife that you and I do on public ground. Not a huge difference from vouchers IMO.

Brian Latturner
MonsterMuleys.com
 
Used 1 landowner voucher last year for buck pronghorn antelope and shot it on the private land to which the voucher was issued on the eastern plains. How about you? How many have you bought and sold, used etc? I understand if you don't want to say but I'm sure you don't run Alan Pennington's ad 24-7-365 and build his website for a pat on the back. Let me also say I don't blame you but I think your arguements on this subject are self serving and are not directed at the defense of the poor starving landowner getting his ranch eaten up by deer and elk. I'm sure you want to continue to get and use vouchers and I understand.

I don't blame people for wanting vouchers to get to hunt more often than the draw system would otherwise allow.

I don't have sour grapes against folks who have driven voucher prices upwards. I do think some are getting royally screwed but its definately buyer beware.

I can afford them but choose not to spend huge amounts of money when I can get tags elsewhere leftover and have relatively successful hunts because of my preparation, knowledge and ability.

I think a great MANY landowners take pride in land stewardship, appreciate and enjoy wildlife, and would still willingly support wildlife if no compensation whatsoever was offered to them.

Keep in mind that Colorado has the MOST liberal game damage compensation allowances in the country, already has private land only tags, in addition to vouchers. A rancher has other ways to recoup losses for some elk wintering in a hay pasture already cut and baled other than selling buck deer licenses for public land for thousands of dollars.

I think you are seriously uninformed if you think landowners in general will and would fight the fight to benefit "Average Joe" sportsmen. The landowner interests have shown time and time again how their selfish interests completely go against what the majority of the hunting public wants. Its a matter of public record and it happens all the time at the Wildlife Commision meetings. These landowner interests are directed simply at generating more money and opportunity for the landowner. This is just business to most of them.

I'm sorry but I have alot of trouble buying this altruistic defense of the landowner voucher system by you. You state that these help compensate the landowner for supporting wildife on his place but that same rancher will sell a voucher and doesn't want anyone setting a foot on his ranch and messing with the wildlife you just helped him support.

On the other hand, my adament opposition to the current voucher system stems directly from my love of hunting, deer & elk, and my desire to see less commercial exploitation of public hunting opportunities. I don't see how this system benefits us all as hunters in the long run.

Also an FYI. None and I mean NONE of the folks who are actively involved with lobbying against and opposing the current voucher system were for those dramatic non-resident hunting restrictions such as Utah and Arizona have, ..... including yours truely. ;)

Just keepin' it real and keepin' it honest!!!
 
Founder,

I disagree with you on there being no difference between an outfitter and the voucher system.

For starters, the guides and outfitters that operate on public lands are greatly restricted in the areas they operate. The FS, BLM, and States restrict their operations to certain areas. Even though they hunt public lands, they cannot typically operate in an entire hunting unit.

Also, the guides and outfitters are also tightly regulated in other ways, they pay use fees on a per hunter basis, etc. to utilize public lands. They have to pay yearly fees in other cases to use public lands.

The vouchers dont limit or regulate much of anything. The FS and BLM dont get ANY compensation from a landowner that sells a voucher to a hunter that intends to hunt public ground with it. Outfitters and guides pay fees to the land management agencies for taking clients hunting on federal lands.

As far as your thoughts on landowners "needing to be compensated" for their winter range...

My thoughts are this. Most of those ranchers are receiving welfare in the form of cheap grazing on BLM, FS, and State lands. I subsidize their grazing on MY PUBLIC LANDS to the tune of a $1.53 an AUM for a cow/calf pair, 5 sheep, or 1 horse. Have you tried feeding a hamster for a buck fifty a month? I think they're cutting a fat hog already.

Since they support some of MY PUBLIC WILDLIFE for a couple months a year...we'll call it even for me subsidizing their cattle for several months a year and competing with MY PUBLIC WILDLIFE on MY PUBLIC LANDS.
 
Buckspy - Ya, I think I'm done. My first hunt is in 9 days----I need to focus.........LOL

We disagree and definitely have very different views on what hunting is today and where it's headed in the future.

Brian Latturner
MonsterMuleys.com
 
It amazes me at how naive some people are. True agricultural producers are not wealthy individuals.(Some may be wealthy, but they did not gain their wealth thru agriculture). There is a smaller number of true ag operations around now, than ever before and the numbers decline every year. Ranchers and farmers are individuals that love working the land and animals, money is not the driving force behind their career choice, although most of you fail to realize that creating a solvent business is necessary to continue.

Our country is headed down a scary road right now, we lose thousands of acres a day to development. At some point in time there will be little left to raise food for this country. We are slowly becoming a service oreinted country. And that is fine we can just import all our food from other countries, even though they don't have as strict of enviromental guidelines for production.

Alot of people like to bash landowners and agriculture producers, but everybody likes to eat too. This voucher thing is a joke, its definetly not a perfect system but what is. How should landowners be compensated for providing wildlife habitat?Buckspy you complain about the commercialazation of hunting, well the first time they sold a hunting license it started. Oh BuzzH, when you go a buy a steak for $10 a pound I guarantee you the rancher that produced that steak didn't get paid anywhere near that. Rancher welfare huh, you have no idea what agricultural is, and what it takes to pruduce these animals.

My family has been ranching for 75 years and we bust a$$ to make a living. So unitl you 've walked the walked, keep your trap shut.

Skeet
 
Maybe we should import our food.

When I was stationed in Europe, a lot of American meat and produce was banned because of all the chemicals and growth hormones we put in our food supply.

Funny how nobody see the obesity of Americans linked to the growth hormones we use in our food. Makes you wonder....

Anyways.....it might just be my way of thinking on this, but the deer and elk are native to Colorado. I dont know why folks talk about them like there are some kind of exotic species destroying ranch land.

How come farmers and ranchers in other Western States can make it, but "ONLY" Colorado farmers and ranchers cant? I dont see any tranferable, good for both private & public land tags in Arizona, Montana or Wyoming? What about the farmers and ranchers back East? How do they make a living? Can someone please explain it to a simple minded person such as myself?
 
I'm trying to be done with this, but good point COHunter. Colorado does have a huge percentage of tags gong to landowners. I know Utah, Oregon, Idaho, New Mexico, Nevada, and Kansas all over landowner tags, but what about eastern states where there are FAR more deer living on farms and ranches?

Brian Latturner
MonsterMuleys.com
 
Come on Skeet. I didn't just fall of the turnip truck. There are many landowners and ranchers who have no desire to be a part of this wildlife exploitation and hunting voucher B.S. I have friends who are in the cattle business and ranching and I know that it not an easy way to make a living on a family run ranch. So are we not allowed to comment on this government based business subsidies for landowners unless we have "walked the walk"? My sister raised a steer for 4H in high school, does that count?

I can tell you for a fact that the vocal ranching and landowner interests that attend the Colorado Wildlife Commision meetings have absolutely no interest in the common man public land hunters and wildlife management unless they can directly profit off it. People keep saying we need to work with these landowners but they have no interest in working with hunters in general unless profit is involved.
 
Well Skeet, I guess the question to you is..... are you willing to grant access to your property or at least a thorofare across your property to public property for huntimg? If not, I suggest you ask for sympathy and financial aid eleswhere! However it is nice to here
from a Landowner standpoint!
By the way, I'm having kind of a tough time my self so if those that care to give away free money, please send some my way!
 
CoHunter, In reference to the obesity problem in this country, the real problem lies with the consumer. So many people eat at all these fast food restaurants, the food is jam packed with transfats and other great things. Our society is so fast paced that alot of people don't take the time to eat right. Try to eat only live food ex: fruits, veggies, meats, not canned and processed foods, thats where the problem lies, don't try to blame obesity on the rancher and farmer, get real. I never said Colorado ranchers and farmers can't make it, I simply implied that it is a business, and just like any business it needs to be financial solvent to survive, and I never said the landowner voucher program was intended to provide "rancher wellfare". But ranchers should be compensated for providing habitat, still no one will tell me how to do this.

Why does Colorado issue more landowner vouchers than any other state? My theory is that since we do have the largest elk and mule deer population in the country that more mouths to feed means more habitat necessary to do this.

Buckspy, the voucher system is a tough issue to understand. Granted there are some people that push the issue and will always want more and will do whatever to get it. But lets not lump all agricultural interests in the same boat. There are plenty of ranchers and farmers that had nothing to do with the implementation of this program. I would assume that most of the guys that participate in the program follow the rules and regs. Granted there are always going to be some that don't, but lets not bash a whole industry because a select group are rotten. Second, the landowners are not the ones purchasing these vouchers, talk to your fellow hunters that have more money than brains. They are the ones driving the market not the landowners. If no one was willing to pay for them then I guess we wouldn't have an issue here would we.

HighWidenHansome, I would never allow a thorofare across my ranch, why would I want every Tom, ##### and Harry roaming across my property leaving gates open and leaving trash. But I do currently allow responsible anglers and hunters onto my property. I was not asking for sympathy or financial aid, thats what banks and loans are for. Read my post carefully next time.

Skeet
 
I think a lot of valid points have been made in this discussion, but as is often the case, we confuse the issue with over-generalizations and tangent discussions.

The original discussion addressed the problems associated with the current voucher system and the real or perceived inequities between private landowners profiting from a public resource and the public being denied access to that resource.

Lumping all hunters or all landowners/ranchers/farmers into tidy groups is clearly inaccurate and creates a barrier for seeking a solution to the problem. And I am a big believer in finding solutions and implementing them rather than venting a complaint and forgetting about it.

The way I see it, this issue boils down to these key elements:

1. Vouchers are awarded based on private land "qualifying" to earn them based on acreage and habitat supplied for the species in question.
2. There are no program requirements (no site visits or mandatory inspections by DOW biologists) to ensure that these qualifications are being met--under current regulatory wording, you could literally own a 160-acre junk yard and obtain at least one voucher in a unit
3. Vouchers given to landowners are transferrable without limit, and are valid on all public lands in the unit
4. Landowners are "required" to provide "reasonable public access" to their property in return for obtaining vouchers, but there is absolutely no enforceable way to ensure that this occurs.
5. Vouchers are issued by setting aside 15% of all public licenses in each unit. This "takes away" public hunt opportunity and "gives it" to landowners in their own private drawing. Once issued, the landowner can then charge whatever the market will bear.
6. Leftover vouchers are NEVER put back into the public draw system. This allows a handful of landowners to monopolize the bulk of this license allocation in some units, and the public never gets a chance to "reclaim" any of the lost draw opportunity. This also allows a handful of landowners to make a lot of money to the exclusion of other landowners in a unit.

The perception and the reality is that the current system is being severely abused, to the detriment of most sportsmen AND landowners, and for the benefit of a very select few. Indeed, most landowners do not participate in the voucher program, but those that do work the many loopholes in the system and are economically benefitting beyond belief, while other landowners, who may be providing far more and better habitat in some cases, are left out entirely.

This is not about rich vs poor or landowner vs sportsmen. It is simply about how to fairly and equitably distribute a very limited resource. And right now, this system has a whole lot of room for improvement.

So what do you think? How about tossing out some solutions? I have many in mind, but don't want to sway opinions. Let's brainstorm and hear your ideas.
 
Well Skeet! I certainly do owe you an apology! If you do
allow sportsmen onto your property or not! I made a mistake, this
thread has been going on for days and the main issue from my stand
point is Landowners wanting to profit from the sale of Landowner tags! I have no problem with Landowners receiving compensation for
tags if they are willing to allow access, not necessarily hunting
on the property they used to qualify for that voucher! Many Landowners insist on NO access, No thorofare but they do want to take advantage of the money, offering nothing in return! How do you feel about that?
And yes, you are right! If a Dumb A is going to pay it, they're going to take it! However, I understand the written law is "The
Landowner must allow access to Qualify for enrollment in the program. This thread was started to try to insure that agreement is
met! Once again I apologize to you!
 
I haven't had time to read all the posts on this subject but thought it would be interesting to show an add that was just posted on ebay. The guy selling the landowner tag actually states in the add that they can not hunt the private ranch where the tag was given and who ever purchases the tag better have another place to hunt! I've seen several of these kind of posts and it definitely seems like a bunch of crock! The landowner tag system definitely needs to be changed! Hopefully the enclosed post will work?

http://cgi.ebay.com/Colorado-Landow...ryZ14110QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
 

Similar threads

jm77
Auctioning access to hunt private land
Replies
32
Views
1k
dwalton
dwalton
F
Change UNIT-WIDE elk designation in New Mexico to RANCH ONLY!
Replies
54
Views
2k
MrRogers
MrRogers
urge2hunt
Updated Mule Deer & Bull Elk Hunts for 2024
Replies
0
Views
1k
urge2hunt
urge2hunt

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

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

IMG_1866.png
Gila NM Bull
Trophy Bull
IMG_2357sat.jpg
1EB7C5C2-E753-4F5A-AD40-5DFE3373291A.jpeg
IMG_1659.jpeg
IMG_3263.jpeg
2022 Buck C.jpg
2875F234-6E7D-4C13-B2DE-12250A017A07.jpeg
5246ABE3-50BB-4977-90FC-71BF828DEF5E.jpeg
485.JPG
E937252D-8A85-4477-9FE6-3D1EC48948F7.jpeg
Back
Top Bottom