Colorado Voucher Damage

[BUCKSPY]

I posted this in another thread but thought it deserved some thought standing on its own. Much of the voucher talk concerns access logistics and regulation but this poses some hard questions I think we must answer at some point.

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.

 

[txhunter58]

1) Private landowners should not be able to sell public hunts to the highest bidder. It is wrong any way you slice it.

2) Private landowners should probably be compensated for providing habitat.

3) I would much rather each of us pay an extra buck on our application and use that money to pay landowners that are eligible.

4) I am not going to hold my breath.

txhunter58

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

 

[Gator]

If you changed the way the tags are put out right now to a system that the tags that aren't sold from the ranchers to hunters to hunt "their" land it would increase the tags in the general draw so I think you would still get just as many hunters in a unit just they would be draw hunters and not Money buying tag hunters, I know alot of ranchers wouldn't sell or ask for these tags if they have to let hunters on their ranches,Family and friends yes but strangers no way, (been there and done that).But it would also change some business(tag brokers & guide services) that run just on this part of the system.

 

[Founder]

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, associations, etc. 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?"
AND
"priviledge to hunt on public land should not ever be a priviledge to bought, sold and bartered"

Outfitters have been offering wildlife (hunts) 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.
Heck, the vouchers are basically paying landowners to feed our game. I don't even think outfitters hunting public land and public game do that much for average sportsmen.

I know many are angry to see "brokers" or "tag pimps" making money on these vouchers, however, most likely that will not last too long in my opinion at the level it is at now. Brokers used to market Utah LO tags, but now landowners in the units have formed associations and sportsmen can find the association contact on the internet. The landowners in these associations pool their money and advertise the tags themselves when needed.

Brokers are in demand now because brokers are the BEST way for landowners to get top dollar for the vouchers. Brokers usually have some form of reaching hunters that landowners do not. It's like selling a home, you pay a broker to do it because they have a better ability to find a buyer than you might on your own.

To be honest, it surprises me that more individual landowners don't advertise on this website instead of paying a hefty commission selling them the other ways. ????
I think most are still lost on all this, but they'll get educated.

With or without brokers, the unitwide vouchers WILL be expensive.

I do think landowners deserve something for supporting wildlife. Private land vouchers have already been tried and failed to properly compensate landowners. Most were and are worthless. And, many landowners only support deer and elk in the winter. The hunts are in the fall when game has not yet arrived on their lands.

Unitwide vouchers will hopefully encourage landowners to tolerate deer and elk that compete with their cattle for graze. If we tell the landowners that we "expect" them to support OUR wildlife for free, eventually they are going to tell us to stick it and they'll run every last animal that is eating what their cattle could be eating, off their lands in the winter. Eventually, unit population objectives would have to be lowered for the lack of available winter range, and that would mean LESS TAGS for all of us.
In addition, if they hate our guts because we want, want, want, without giving anything to them for what they do, we will loose in the end.
The day WILL come when our rights to hunt will be challenged and cattlemen, ranchers, and farmers NEED to be our friends. If they hate us, we will be easy to beat.

There ARE problems with the current unitwide LO voucher system, and those problems need to be fixed. BUT, the system does not need to be scraped.

Heck, maybe the CDOW should just auction the tags themselves and compensate landowners with cash. Whatever!!! Doesn't matter how they do it, but landowners need to be compensated FAIRLY.
Currently, some are not being compensated at all for what they provide, some are being over compensated.

As far as prices, it would be BEST if vouchers were selling for $100,000 each, because then it would take less of them to compensate landowners, therefore maybe the 15% could be lowered to 5-10%. ???????
Keep that in mind while you're fighting the battle. Maybe a system that FIRST identifies WHAT landowners should get in $$$ for their contribution, then the number of tags be set is the better way.
For example, if 40 landowners in unit 61 is deserve, on average, $2000.00 per year, then give the landowners only the number of tags that will generate that $2000.00 for those 40 landowners ($80,000). ???? They form an association and auction them.
I do believe that at some point, landowners could actually get MORE than they deserve if the value of vouchers continues to climb.

Sorry for the long post..

Brian Latturner
MonsterMuleys.com

 

[AWHOLELOTTABULL]

Here is another twist on the CO voucher problem. A very frequent problem took place last year with several well known "tag pimps" selling the vouchers for a lot of money prior to the draw and then the unit went undersubscribed. They refused to give them their money back. I would bet it is happening this year again. These guys are slitting their own throat. We bought tags for a unit last year that was supposed to be a great unit, as touted by the "tag pimp" and several things he stated weren't true. In fact the peoples names he gave us to call were working for him. We didn't know this at the time. Be very careful.

www.awholelottabull.com

 

[Shane]

Jim,
Can you PM me and tell me who you bought your landowner tags from? It could save me a headache in the future.

Thanks,
Shane

 

[HighWidenHandsome]

It seems to me the Founders point is reasonable! Certainly there
has to be a question from the Landowner point of veiw about the
distribution of funds! Example: Landowner A property is in Unit 44
he receives 2 vouchers that sell for a combined $8000 Landowner B in unit 444 receives 2 vouchers that sell for a combined $400 They both provide for wildlife but unit 44 is a better opt for the trophy
hunter, therefore his vouchers are worth much more money!Does that
mean Landowners need to share the combined revenue or do Landowners
start fighting for more limited tags in their respective GMU's?
(I think you know what I mean)

 

[BUCKSPY]

Honestly, I could care less how much each recieves. I think this Old West entitlement mentality feeds the current landowner tag situation across states that provide it. If the landowner owns property for agricultural and or livestock propagation, I would think it would be in his best interests to do the best that he can with what the land can provide under the circumstances. If he has great habitat and it supports wildlife, then he has a viable product to market in the hunting of his property. There is an undeniable demand for quality hunting opportunities and it is quite evident by the skyrocketing prices of vouchers that the market knows almost no limits if the real quality is there. If that landowner has those opportunities, Colorado's season structure is so wide open that the landowner can have hunts from August to late November. Surely if he has the habitat for wildlife, they will be there at some point during those months. If they are there early, he can market to muzz and archery hunters and vice/versa for the later rifle hunts.

If he chooses to overhunt his own property utilizing draw tags and Private Land Only tags and in turn doesn't have marketable hunting opportunities, than I believe its only him to blame.
I don't believe that being able to aquire and then market a few quality buck or bull tags for each property to be used out on public land is going to be the difference between a sink or swim profit margin for the rancher( or wealthy landowner if we want to maintain a fair representation and provide some honesty).

There lies the incentive to support wildlife and provide habitat for it. If he has the quality, people will pay.

Like I have stated previously, if the elk or deer are wreaking havoc on the feed the landowner has for his livestock, Colorado has THE MOST LIBERAL game damage compensation system in the country! That is a mute, hollow, B.S. arguement IMO!

Landowners have a right to hunt and provide for hunting opportunities on their own property. I don't believe they have the right to use a loop hole in the law to market and profit off the hunting opportunites available to all of us on public land. They are circumventing the original intent of this system and I hope it bites them in the proverbial azz eventually. It's a wrong that needs to be righted.

 

[Gator]

Amen

 

[BUCKSPY]

As far as outfitters hunting public land being the same as landowner vouchers. Not even close.

The hunting licenses are limited hence a draw system is put in place to provide some fairness in the allocation of these "Hunting opportunites." Hunters apply, hope, pray and wait their turn. Landowner vouchers back door this process and make this opportunity saleable to the highest bidder. It allows those with the financial means the ability to circumvent this fair draw system.

Outfitters work within the system and provide a service to those who have participated in the draw system and have been given an opportunity. Long gone are the days of the past when tags weren't limited and an outfitter's only concern was booking clients. Now that outfitter providing this service(not a product and there is a difference) has to worry about booking clients who were lucky enough to draw a tag.

The outfitter's business and the voucher sales might be the same in your opinion Brian, but I think I have shown that there is a distinct difference in this service and the product of vouchers.

I don't even want to get into outfitter tags and this welfare system for this line of business like in other states. That is a huge freakin' can of worms.

 

[AWHOLELOTTABULL]

Buckspy - while I agree with what you are saying there is a catch 22 with regards to creating the premium hunting land that you talk about. We have to support the landowners. I am not saying that I have the answer but there has to be someway to make the majority happy. Developers are continually making pushes on prime hunting land offering millions of dollars to the landowner to sell out. If he makes x number of dollars on the tags and the developer comes and offers him 20 times that amount he will more than likely concede and sell. I have seen it happen to places that I hunted as a kid and recently I have witnessed some of the best elk country in the world fall to developement. The DWR is well aware of this and IMO, some of the tactics they are currently using to bolster tag numbers and cost are directly related to preserving habitat in respect to that. If this develpment continues you and I will be on the losing end of the deal.

www.awholelottabull.com

 

[HighWidenHandsome]

BUCKSPY You've sold me! It sounds like you are well
informed on the subject! I'm a non-resident and I won't be hunting
the unit and season of my choice! Probably won't be deer hunting in
Colorado this year! My question is do you plan to take your recommendation to the board? Association? or who ever? and do you
expect it to be passed? (the way I read your proposal, it's all or
none) correct? Like I said, Your opinion sounds great to me if it
increaes my chances to hunt! I'm just not sure it would happen!

 

[Califelkslayer]

I don't have a problem with the landowners getting compensated. Not at all. I do have a problem with the tag pimps getting rich. They solicit every landowner they can, do the paperwork for them and resell the voucher at a 100% profit or more.

My solution, although probably unenforcable, is to make the voucher only transferrable once. Figure that one out and you have the fix.

 

[Founder]

Buckspy - I agree that we disagree. I think there is too much private land that is utilized by the game in the winter, and not in the fall, and those landowners deserve something, because there's no game there to hunt in the fall. They support the wildlife when they need it most, in Dec., Jan., & Feb.

Also, I have used vouchers in Colorado. I can't afford much and WAY too cheap to pay much even I could, but if I can find something, I would again. BUT, that's not why I think landowners deserve something. I feel the same for Utah landowners and I can't even come close to affording one of those tags. It won't be long before all CO vouchers are out of my reach, in fact, the time might be now????
But, I still think they are deserving landowners. I also think the system needs to be fixed in many areas.

As far as the middle man making money, again, probably won't last long. It is just a matter of landowners becoming educated as to how to sell the vouchers without the use of a broker. They'll figure it out.

Brian Latturner
MonsterMuleys.com

 

[txhunter58]

>Buckspy -
> Developers are continually
>making pushes on prime hunting
>land offering millions of dollars
>to the landowner to sell
>out.
>
>www.awholelottabull.com

This is the only real reason I can see why the voucher system might be used. It is getting so much harder to make the family farm/ranch pay for itself, and I am all for helping that tradition continue.


txhunter58

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

 

[txhunter58]

>It seems to me the Founders
>point is reasonable! Certainly
>there
>has to be a question from
>the Landowner point of veiw
>about the
>distribution of funds! Example: Landowner
>A property is in Unit
>44
>he receives 2 vouchers that sell
>for a combined $8000
>Landowner B in unit 444
>receives 2 vouchers that sell
>for a combined $400
>They both provide for wildlife
>but unit 44 is a
>better opt for the trophy
>
>hunter, therefore his vouchers are worth
>much more money!Does that
>mean Landowners need to share the
>combined revenue or do Landowners
>
>start fighting for more limited tags
>in their respective GMU's?
>(I think you know what I
>mean)

I agree a lot with this argument. Again, if we made it a $1 on our application, and spit the proceeds equally, it would benefit a lot more people. Why should someone in unit 201 get more compensation for providing habitat than someone in another, less desirable hunting unit? Not the aim of the program at all.

txhunter58

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

 

[Colville]

LAST EDITED ON Aug-07-06 AT 08:14AM (MST)[p]A simple Q... WHY IS HABITAT BEING PAID FOR WITH TAGS?

The principle should be to: compensate/incent landowners to preserve/improve habitat.

They should receive money based on the quality, quantity and importance(winter grounds?) of their pieces.

That pay should be analyzed by owner and should be funded in a lump cash payment whether they allow hunting or not. That cash should be derived from a increase in the price of all tags. You could then offer other cash incentives for also providing access. But since the #1 purpose is about habitat/winter grounds preservation they could all restrict access and that'd be acceptable. If they fail to maintain habitat standards, they are booted from the program.

Never should it have been allowed to become a brokering/marketing of the wildlife itself. It stinks to high heven. If they paid as above, the land owners could still sell trespass on their own dirt, but now they'd be forced to do so if they wanted to increase their take. IE... spread the hunting around. When you turn the wildlife into the commodity you are on the path to ruining this thing we do.

Gee, wonder why founder would not be disagreeable to it? Maybe because he believes in a hefty set aside of hunting oportunity that can be had, year after year, where you want, when you want as long as you aren't a mouth breathing member of the unwashed masses.

We're not there yet. It's going to take a general revolt of the peons to end it and the greedy haven't stolen enough of the resource yet. The peasants continue to sleep. But hogs never stop, they'll take more and more till finally the line's been crossed.

We are being told the rich are buying habitat restoration. Why aren't we all buying it in our license fees and in so doing keeping all hunters in one field of play. We all buy tags, points and we all wait our turn in line? That's rhetorical of course.

 

[ICMDEER]

BUCKSPY - you are "right on" on this topic. Landowners should be able to sell the licenses for use on their private lands, but the public lands are another issue. The last paragrpah in your post #7 says it all.

And personally, I take some offense being in the same category as the tag borkers (sometime called "pimps" here). As a Wyoming outfitter, I have no control whatsoever on the license side, so Founder has no legitimate claim to compare me to a broker. We are so heavily regulated that we have forms for every occasion. We are limited by all sorts of barriers, so no need to make that invlaid comparison.

I still try to hunt Colorado every year and will help any way I can to help stop this landowner boondoggle from getting any worse. Let me know who to write or where to go. I'll make the trip if I possibly can and speak up as well.

Thanks for starting the post, BS.

ICMDEER - Jim Freeburn