Colorado Landowner Vouchers

B

beartrap35

Guest
There is a Colorado Resident Coalition task force trying to eliminate the current landowner voucher system, or make the permits good only on private land!!! so any fellow hunters who plan on purchasing a colorado voucher next year or in the near future,needs to let the colorado wildlife commission know your opinion on this subject!! If they dont eliminate the system and make these private land only, most of these permits will be worthless!!! I agree the system needs to be adjusted to help solve some problems, but feel it would be a mistake to eliminate or make the permits good only on private land!!! send me a message if you want direct e-mail links to these commissioners!!! thanks beartrap35
 
I am a guy that has used vouchers to hunt the last few years and have resold a few also. With that being said, I am in favor of them making the changes you have mentioned.

There people making way too much money of of them. They are to the point now where an average hunter cannot afford them. I am strongly opposed to hunting becoming a rich man sport ( even though I spend a ton of money on hunting!)

The abuse of the land access by the landowners this year also irritating. A lot of the landowner are recieving a lot of money but dont want to allow access to the animals on their property that are making them money.

Making the vouchers valid for private land only would be a great idea. It would allow managment of game herds that head to private land whe the season starts. It would also force the landowners to give something back for the money they recieve.

Bring on the changes!!!!!!!!!
 
Thanks for the heads up, I'll be emailing the commisioners to support the elimination of the current voucher system.
 
I agree with the changes also!
These landowner vouchers were intended to control the private land herds, not to give residents a chance to make money by selling them.

Landowner vouchers should only be good on private land, period, end of story!

Just because someone has more money they should not be able to buy the tag that others have to wait for in the draw.

Send me the links to these people in charge and I will voice my support of these changes!
 
Unfortunately I would have to agree on this issue. The landowners, hunting management companies etc. have caused this problem. If there was a way to assure that if you purchased a permit from a landowner you would have access to that ranchers property and public land, I would be all for it. But this appears to be how it is set up now and the owners basically under the table, have you sign off that you won't hunt their land. It takes two for a system to work and unfortunately greed won out on this one. So bring on the changes.

T
 
While the system in place now isn't the best it is working pretty well and most who don't like it are just jeleous of those who can afford tags. remember that the game animals are not always on the private property during season so hunting the entire unit makes sense. here in Oregon LO tags are good only for deeded property, often during the season I don't have any elk on my property but early this morning there were probably over 100 tearing things up. so the other landowners around me scream like mashed cats and we have depredation hunts and 7 month long cow and calf seasons. let it be or pay for it later, as good as Colorado's herds are doing I'd say leave well enough alone.
 
> While the system in place
>now isn't the best it
>is working pretty well and
>most who don't like it
>are just jeleous of those
>who can afford tags. remember
>that the game animals are
>not always on the private
>property during season so hunting
>the entire unit makes sense.
> here in Oregon LO
>tags are good only for
>deeded property, often during the
>season I don't have any
>elk on my property but
> early this morning there
>were probably over 100
>tearing things up. so the
>other landowners around me scream
>like mashed cats and
>we have depredation hunts and
>7 month long cow and
>calf seasons. let it be
>or pay for it later,
>as good as Colorado's herds
>are doing I'd say leave
>well enough alone.

If the animals are on public land then let the tags go up in the public draw and give everyone a better chance at drawing. What you have mentioned does not justify giving landowner tags, if the animals are not on private land during the season then that landowner should not be issued tags at all. As far as being jealous, there are guaranteed tags available with outfitters and the people that want to "buy" their tag can go that route. This current system is not accomplishing what it was designed to accomplish and needs to be changed and regulated to meet the goals that were set. The landowner tags were set up to allow hunting of animals that were on private land and thus inaccessible to people that had public land unit wide tags. This was to manage the herds that were on private land, not to add to the people hunting public land. If you want to complian about the animals tearing things up on your land then it is real simple---MOVE! I am sure there are plenty of people that wold love to have that problem!
 
the goal is wildlife management.

let um hunt the unit, but make the tags non transferable and available only to the land owner or his close family. Make the land owner accountable and make them be with the hunter at all times. If they dont hunt, take the tags and put them back into the draw and the land owner then as to allow access, or they have no room to complain if their shrubs and fields are getting eaten to the nub by deer and elk.

Cut the cash and underhanded BS out of the system, let people hunt but with restrictions and at least you have a system that can come close to equitable. . .
 
A3,
What I said does say why the landowner should have unit wide tags he can sell, he winters the animal then has nothing to show for it during season. unless you want his hunt to happen now while the game is on his property then leave things alone. believe me if what you guys want to happen with these tags goes down the landowners will scream and the game animals will pay, so if you'ld rather have spring depredation hunts where a guy guts his cow and a calf trys to stand up in the gut pile just proceed on with your cause. winter and spring hunts are sick and I don't allow them on my property but most landowners will and if you tick them off they'll demand them, and they'll get them. you guys in Colorado don't know how good you have it, just go hunt in most other states and you'll see if it aint broke don't fix it.
 
It works fine just the way it is in colorado right now, we dont need anymore stupid changes or laws. Ive had landowner tags, they work. The people that dont have access to get them might whine some but so what. Theres always a whiner or two with nothing better to do than complain about the way things are. The areas I hunt have 90% or more private land and it gives the landowner some incentive and puts a little cash in his pocket, everyones happy but the whiners, imagine that. Gary
 
hey elk crazy, sounds like youre in a special place, I dont think this issues was ment to change an area that is 90% private. Whole-sale chages would of course, but this is like almost every other wildlife or natural resouce issue, you cant do just one thing, and each area requires a seperate and taylord managment stratigy. I'd say it's complicated, in some areas it works okay, but at the end of the day, those deer and elk are a public and NOT private resource. . . i'd rather see deer and elk killed by a bullet for food than have them starve to death. . .
 
These web sites are worse then then articles and newspapers. You guys should really get more knowledge of the issues before you start writing letters.

As I understand it, the only way vouchers can be made private land only is through legislative action. I don't believe a bill has been sponsored yet. The wildlife commission can't change that rule. I personally know of no group today that plans to introduce such legislation.

What is under consideration is the fee landowners would pay for LEFTOVER vouchers. They are considering raising from 25 to $40.

As well, they are looking at ways to tighten rules around access, and discourage brokering activities.

The actual issue paper is the last document found in this list.
http://wildlife.state.co.us/NR/rdon...9CF-209371092407/0/Ch2BigGameIssuesPacket.pdf

The proposed changes, came from the Cattlemens association, and the farm bureau, so it ain't from sportsmen and so called "jealousy" as mentioned above has nothing to do with it. I always get a kick out of that one.

That said, if you feel the systems need to be tweaked, the division and the commission always welcome public input. In fact, you can attend some of the upcoming public commissioner meetings in person to voice your opinions. Here are the details for one:

http://wildlife.state.co.us/NewsMedia/PressReleases/Press.asp?PressId=4149

As I have been told, the original intent of the voucher system was to allow landowners to hunt their own lands. Is that the primary usage today?
 
I agree with hunindude.If we make LO vouchers good for private land only we have made 90% of them worthless as most animals are not on the property until after the hunting seasons. They help winter these animals and they should be compensated for doing so. The only guys whining are the ones that either can't afford to buy them or don't have bussiness' that reap the benifits when these hunters dump cash into the local economy. Take away the value of the LO vouchers and you can kiss the habitat where many of these animals winter good buy. Depradation hunts will surley follow.
I don't like it anymore than the rest of you that the average guy has been priced out of vouchers, but not properly compenasting LO will do far more harm.
 
Tfinal, What if the LO doesn't hunt. He still should be compensated for carring wildlife through the winter. What if CDOW compensates the LO with money. Do we tell them they can only spend the money at Sportsmens warehouse. Compensation is just that---compensation.The LO should be able to use it as they choose.
 
Agreed and some animals not onoly winter on these ranches but live on them year round just depends where you hunt like has been mentioned. Gary
 
Grasshopper - The Colorado statute clearly states the "intent" of these vouchers. Here you go:

"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"

Providing hunting opportunity to landowners is not mentioned anywhere in the statute.

I don't think the legislature really cares who uses the vouchers, as long as habitat is provided and harboring is discouraged.

Brian Latturner
MonsterMuleys.com
 
I had a voucher this year and the issue I had was that I didn't have access to the landowners property. Where Founder put in the quote on the purpose of the landowner tag there is also a sentence in there states "the landowner must provide REASONABLE access to the property." So now they have an out where they don't have to give you access to the property you bought the voucher for.

The DOW says there is a definite loophole in the program and it is brokers who are taking advantage of the landowners in many cases. I talked to the landowner of the voucher I had and he basically knew no details about the program. He was contacted by someone in TX who told him that he would send him some paperwork to sign and would submit the application for him and pay XXX $ for the vouchers he got. His take was I get a little extra money for filling out some paperwork. He was a really nice guy and I truly believe he wasn't the problem, but that the broker was.

We did fine hunting public land, but I see where people are putting in for the draw would be upset because I was able to buy access to the public land for that unit while they kept their fingers crossed hoping they would draw. There is the arguement that this is anopportunity for the local ranchers and farmers to recoup some of the loses from crop and feed damage from wildlife, but it seemse that the brokers are the ones who are profiting.

Rackem

**************************************
INTERVIEW WITH GOD
http://www.livingwaters.com/interview/index.shtml
 
A lot of people are talking about compensating the landowner for the damage and this is ridiculous.

#1 The landowner should have known he would have wildlife on the land when he bought the place and if he didn't then he didn't do his research. If he doesn't like the problem of wildlife on his land THEN MOVE!!!! Nobody is forcing him to stay there!
#2 The DOW can still control the game population through regular tags if the animals are not on private land. Landowner tags are not needed to control this.
#3 Read founder's post. Is this what is happening?
#4 DOW is still in charge of controlling herd size, not the landowners. If there are leftover tags, make them available to the public.
 
> A3,
> What I said does say
>why the landowner should have
>unit wide tags he can
>sell, he winters the animal
>then has nothing to show
>for it during season. unless
>you want his hunt to
>happen now while the game
>is on his property then
>leave things alone. believe me
>if what you guys want
>to happen with these tags
>goes down the landowners will
>scream and the game animals
>will pay, so if you'ld
>rather have spring depredation hunts
>where a guy guts his
>cow and a calf trys
>to stand up in the
>gut pile just proceed on
>with your cause. winter and
>spring hunts are sick and
>I don't allow them on
>my property but most landowners
>will and if you tick
>them off they'll demand them,
>and they'll get them. you
>guys in Colorado don't know
>how good you have it,
>just go hunt in most
>other states and you'll see
>if it aint broke don't
>fix it.


It is broke and it does need to be fixed.
 
"#1 The landowner should have known he would have wildlife on the land when he bought the place and if he didn't then he didn't do his research. If he doesn't like the problem of wildlife on his land THEN MOVE!!!! Nobody is forcing him to stay there!"

Sorry but that is a real short sighted attitude. Help me understand..if I have a ranch and don't like the damage (real or perceived) that the animals are doing and I decide to sell out to a developer, who wins? Certainly not the animals.

"#2 The DOW can still control the game population through regular tags if the animals are not on private land. Landowner tags are not needed to control this."

If the animals live on private land, or congregate there during season, how can the DOW control the populations? Force the landowner to allow public access? Pay for access? Deny depredation payments if you don't allow access?

"#3 Read founder's post. Is this what is happening?"

Probably not, but if it is already written in the law, then the problem is enforcement of existing laws, NOT the lack of new laws.

"#4 DOW is still in charge of controlling herd size, not the landowners. If there are leftover tags, make them available to the public."

Agreed

It seems to me that if the DOW would just enforce the existing laws many of the problems would go away. Some landowners would not participate because they don't want hunters on their land. Fine. The ranches that have animals during season would get hunted. Those that don't would still receive compensation for providing habitat and hopefully keep a few ranches out of develpers hands.
 
Wether he should have known or not, for as long as I remember The Division of Wildlife has been compensating Landowners for crop/ property damage due to Wildlife during winter months mostly, I rememember one specific instance 20 years ago, the dairy farmer landowner we hunted on was telling us about a deer fence the division actually built with hunter dollars to protect this guys hay stack!!! So they are going to compensate landowners for damage no matter what becomes of the voucher system!!! And with Colorado Deer and Elk herds doing better than they have in a long time!! I would rather dollars from landowner permits help keep landowners happy rather than see it come from other programs that are actually directly helping the strength of the herds and quality of the animals!!! And as far as the division controlling the herds somewhat they do!!! but I know of a specific instance where a landowner was aloud to harvest as many bears as he needed to as long as he left them lay.... this came directly from a division of wildlife officer!!!!


Beartrap35
 
So you bought a huge ranch in eastern colorado back say in the 40's maybe. There werent hardly any deer in the area at the time. Now there is and so you need to sell your ranch because of it ? Right !! Landowners need to be compensated not just for damage but raising these animals that we enjoy and giving them a safe place to stay. All of the above. Someone else must think the same or there wouldnt be any vouchers now would there? Gary
 
One other item that I couldn't find in any of the above posts was that guys that purchase landowner tags currently don't loose their pref pts. Do any of you think this is fair? Some of the voucher tags in some of the premier units are bought for $4,000 to $10,000+ in units that may take 8 to 15 pts to draw. The guy that buys vouchers bi-passes the pref pt system and is allowed to hunt while guys that have been waiting in line 8 to 15 years and still haven't drawn may be waiting a lifetime to hunt. Every voucher tag is one less tag offered to the average Joe. Landowners should be compensated for harboring wildlife but how should ranchers be compensated?

Colorado currently offers private land only tags that are available in the public draw. For the most part the private landowner tags only take a fraction of the pts to draw that the regular tags take. Obviously these tags are only valid to hunt on private land.

If you've hunted Colo many times it becomes quite apparent that public land gets hunted pretty darn hard and private land doesn't have near the hunting pressure. Landowner vouchers were originally designed to promote hunting on private land rather than offering guys a means of bi-passing the pref pt system and often hunting on public land.
 
What a bunch of disingenuous B.S.!!!

Beartrap35-How passionate would you be about this issue if you weren't selling vouchers on eBay?

The only real reason that most people on this website are in favor of vouchers is that they want to jump ahead of the rest of you in the preference point and draw game and "buy" their way onto the public lands to hunt coveted deer and elk units on a regular basis.

These ranchers and tag brokers are rubbing our noses in it by having their cake, selling it for thousands to the highest bidder and then selling trespass hunts to "Private Land Only" deer license holders for even more money.

Is it any big surprise that license quotas went down in some areas in Colorado this year but "Private Land Only" licenses suddenly went up in number. Some of the same landowners that are selling vouchers with a "no access" affidavit to be signed by the buyer are also selling trespass hunts to individuals who purchased "Private Land Only" tags.

You guys are getting screwed out of opportunity that is being brokered for profit and eventually most on this website will be priced out.

In this country, public land hunting should not be for sale to the highest bidder!!!!!!!!

Make vouchers good for the land in which they were issued and it solves just about every problem with this issue.
 
Elkcrzy-Apples and oranges. Eastern Colorado is almost entirely private land so selling vouchers to hunt public land really doesn't apply. I have never heard of a landowner being eaten out of habitat by deer. I have seen many, many times however, ranchers devastating winter range of deer and elk via cattle grazing.
 
I find it interesting that the majority of the people against vouchers are using "they are a public resource". They are a public resource managed by the State DOW. The CDOW just changed the rules on NR and gave the Res. hunters more access to the LE units for the next 5 years (4 now I guess). The DOW has to have revenue to operate just like everyone else. The revenue lost by closing off some of the NR hunters has to be made up somewhere. The Colorado Res. hunters refuse to let the Dow raise Res tags up (I know they raised them up this year for the first time in 15 years to a whopping $45 dollars).

The DOW is paying the Landowners for helping them manage the herd with either wintering grounds or santuary (sp) for animals in distress. If they have to pay the LO's out of State funds then the money has to come from somewhere and the Res. hunters have been very vocal in that the money is going to come from somewhere else and not them.

Until the locals decide they are going to help pay then the DOW has every right to get the required result in game mangement by whatever means they have at their disposal. Issuing tags to LO's to help with management doesn't cost the DOW anything and helps with management of the herd through the LO's.

You can't have your cake and eat it too.
 
Buckspy!!

I did sell 6 Landowner vouchers this year 2004 and 2005 I didnt sell any, I had to figure a way to afford them so I chose to sell a few to offset the cost!!! Instead of whining about a few big leaguers making all the money I chose to take some of their Business. If they cut brokers out it wont hurt my feeling at all!!! And I am not a landowner either collecting the proceeds of the vouchers.....I am a hunter using the current system to hunt the best units I can afford!! and as far as saving bonus points yeah I save my bonus points because thats the way the system is set up!!! I hunt a unit that takes one preference point to hunt, so the points isnt a big deal really but its nice to be able to hunt one unit as often as possible!!!! The system is working with the exception of a few brokers getting rich...... Colorado Deer are coming back in most all units......so the more the deer come back the voucher prices should go down if you can hunt a unit you can draw every year and have a descent shot at a 180" buck!!! the demand for vouchers will go down in units which are over hyped like unit 61!!!

Beartrap35
 
The Colorado statute clearly states the "intent" of these vouchers. Here you go:
"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"

Taking what the statute clearly states, I would like for someone to tell me how landowners should be encouraged to continue to provide wildlife habitat without any compensation.
 
What about landowners that own land which deer never use? The way I understand it, anyone with 160+ acres can get vouchers.

"You can't have your cake and eat it too"
Exactly, if someone wants to purchase vouchers, fine, but they should not be allowed to play the points game at the same time.
 
COSA, How would you do the points? By making them play the points game then you are limted to selling the vouchers to mostly Res. which with the current program is a crock. If you are over 30 and didn't start getting points several years ago, you aren't going to hunt an LE unit for a long, long time. Not trying to start a fight, just stating a fact.

I don't have the jack to pay for a voucher, but if a guy does (Res. or NR) and it helps with the management then I'm all for it.
 
Easy, if you choose to buy a voucher you lose your points. At the very least someone should not be able to buy a voucher and earn a point in the same year. And I do not think that all of us against vouchers can't afford them and are jealous. I could afford to buy one, but I guess I'm not one of those people that drive by everyone else waiting in a traffic jam and then cut in front of the semi at the last minute.
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-19-06 AT 05:18PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Dec-19-06 AT 05:16?PM (MST)

LAST EDITED ON Dec-19-06 AT 05:13?PM (MST)

BCHunter, You bring up a very good question in regard to pref pts and vouchers. Currently hunters can buy vouchers and hunt every year. It doesn't matter whether it is a 1 pref pt unit or 15 pt unit a guy can hunt these units every year if he can afford the voucher. It just doesn't seem right to me that anyone with cash can bi-pass the pref pt system...does it to you?

One simple solution would be to have private land only tags available in the public draw where tags are allocated to the applicants with the highest number of preference pts (similar to what already is in place). This not only would place more hunting pressure on private land but would allow the public the flexibility of drawing tags to hunt self-guided or with an outfitter on private land. I believe a lot of guys on this site are upset with the current system because: 1) voucher holders bi-pass the pref pt system and 2) often hunt public land.

One of the biggest concerns for all of us is "pref pt creep." The private land only tags would definitely help this out as well. Guys that currently purchase vouchers get out of it scott-free while a private only draw would require hunters to use pts to draw tags. This makes a lot of sense to me!

I would imagine most of us that disagree with the current system would be perfectly happy with a limited number of landowner vouchers that could not be sold and/or must be used on private land. I know Wyoming and other states require landowners to prove they have so many head of wildlife on their property for so many months before they are offered landowner tags. I'm pretty sure in Wyo landowners can only sell their tags at face value rather than at market prices! This sure would do away with a lot of the current head-ache in regard to brokers trying to make $ off these tags!
 
For those arguing that the average joe is priced out of the vouchers that is crap. There were plenty of vouchers out there for 400-800 bucks this year. The same guys that are whining that only the rich can afford these are the ones plopping 500 bones for a shot at a raghorn bull. Yah they were for units that took 0-1 point, but at least you are hunting. Rackem: If you didn't like your experience, don't buy one next year. Anyone who did any research on the subject could assume that they were not going to be able to hunt the landowner's land.
 
idhunters:
Who said they need to sell to developers? There are plenty of people who want to buy land and keep it out of developers hands. They just need to stop whining about crop damage to get money.

I don't have a problem with landowners using/getting tags on their own land, even if they sell them. Just keep it a private land only tag.

"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"

This is what needs to be enforced and to do that they need to change the current situation of LO's selling tags for guys to hunt public land. I don't know how they get around this and are able to sell tags for public land and not allow access, but in my opinion that is what needs to be made very clear so they can bust the landowners or brokers who are breaking the law.

"Some landowners would not participate because they don't want hunters on their land. Fine. The ranches that have animals during season would get hunted."
This is how it should be!

BTW: For those that think the complaint is coming from the ones that can't afford it, you're wrong. Maybe we just don't agree with it.
 
beartrap: I sent you a pm this morning, I am still wanting the links to the comissioners;-)
 
I think that this would be fair and would encourage what the system was actually designed to do, hunting on private land. Right now, the current system is basically a way to buy pref. points:

Unit wide vouchers (public land) purchasers would lose their pref. points. This would help reduce pref. points creep as well.

Private land only or property specific vouchers, the hunter would retain preference points.
 
I can tell this is a hot topic! However, to attack anyone based on their use of these vouchers is wrong. The system that is in place does not make anyone a criminal or wrong. If beartrap decides to use the system for whatever reason people should not blast him. If they are available, I am buying! If I had contacts I would sell them! If they go to a public draw I will apply and draw a few. The system may or may not be flawed, but to tear apart a buyer, seller, resident or non-resident is not what this is about. It is about taking the steps to change the system. This reminds me a whole lot of the Utah Conservation Tag issue.

I say keep the system as it is though.;-)
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-19-06 AT 06:44PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Dec-19-06 AT 06:43?PM (MST)

e-mail adresses of Colorado wildlife commissioners:
Jeff Crawford- [email protected]
Thomas Burke- [email protected]
Richard Ray- [email protected]
Rick Enstrom- [email protected]
Brad Coors- [email protected]
Claire O'neal [email protected]
Robert Bray [email protected]
Roy McAnally [email protected]
Ken Torres [email protected]
Russel George [email protected]
Don Ament [email protected]

General comment to commissioners:
[email protected]

Thanks for the help beartrap;-)
(or lack thereof)
 
Since the reason for private tags was in part to discourage harboring of animals on private land during hunting seasons then how can that happen if these tags are used on Public land?

The tags should be only used on private land AND they should only be transferable one time.


BeanMan
 
Buckspy

1)The only real reason that most people on this website are in favor of vouchers is that they want to jump ahead of the rest of you in the preference point and draw game and "buy" their way onto the public lands to hunt coveted deer and elk units on a regular basis.

answer:Yes, this is true, but their is a legal system in place that allows this and if a guy has the money and wants to hunt why place the blame on him. There has been LO compensation in place for over 50 years. There hasn't been a problem until recently when voucher prices have become insanely expensive.

2)These ranchers and tag brokers are rubbing our noses in it by having their cake, selling it for thousands to the highest bidder and then selling trespass hunts to "Private Land Only" deer license holders for even more money.

answer: I doubt that ranchers and brokers are that spiteful towards hunters. There is a sysyem in place and they are merely taking advantage of it. You would too.



Is it any big surprise that license quotas went down in some areas in Colorado this year but "Private Land Only" licenses suddenly went up in number. Some of the same landowners that are selling vouchers with a "no access" affidavit to be signed by the buyer are also selling trespass hunts to individuals who purchased "Private Land Only" tags.

answer: I spoke with a guy who is over LO vouchers in a particular region and he said despite what public opinion is, there has been very little abuse on the landowners part as it pertains to allowing access. I asked him what would happen if a LO denied access to his land to which a voucher was issued and he said it is up to the hunter to file a complaint. Once the complaint has been filed, the LO is given the option to allow access or be removed from the program.

You guys are getting screwed out of opportunity that is being brokered for profit and eventually most on this website will be priced out.
Make vouchers good for the land in which they were issued and it solves just about every problem with this issue.



answer: you want to talk about getting screwed, lets change the current LO program so the vouchers are only good for the land in which they were issued. Because most animals are not on most Landowners land until after the season, the permits will become worthless. Land owners will become outraged and demand depradation hunts in December when deer are the most vulnerable (especially the big bucks).Talk about hunters getting screwed. You'd have the lions share of these big bucks hit'n the dirt in December, and if they allowed the depradation permits to be sold by the LO they would probably make 3 times the money that they would off LO vouchers. We are better off letting the LO sell these tags and let the animals be hunted on their own turf when they are a lot less vulnerable.

In this country, public land hunting should not be for sale to the highest bidder!!!!!!!!

answer: I couldn't agree with you more, but the cold hard facts are that LO need to be compensated for them to continue to care about the wildlife they are feeding throughout the winter, and funds must be raised to sustain the habitat needs of wildlife. Most Wildlife divisions have pretty slim budgets as it is, so I don't see them pulling the money out of there general budgets to compensate LO. Don't blame the brokers or people buying the permits, they are just taking advantage of a system that is in place. If you want to place blame somewhere start with Hunt'n Fool, Muley Crazy, and every other guy that hypes these units up to where the prices are out of reach to the average guy. The truth is, the same guys that want to see the current LO program go away are the same guys that were buying LO tags in premium units when they were $500. Now that the prices are sky high the program sucks.

P.s.Nothing persoanl, I hope. I usually agree with most of your posts but this is one issue I have to take a stand on.

Best, Mike
 
Cosa, this is directly from a guy at CDOW who is over the LO program.Your 160 acres must harbor game during the year to qualify.

Mike
 
First of all I buy vouchers directly from a landowner and I state this so someone doesn't accuse me of having a hidden agenda. How come the vouchers are such a hot topic but nobody is bashing the set aside of tags to guides in Montana, New Mexico, Nevada, Oregon to name of few. Isn't this someone making money of of "our" wildlife. Don't they get special treatment in the draws but no one says boo about it. What do outfitters do to feed the wildlife, provide habitat and so on. Nothing. The reason that this is such a hot topic is that the vouchers are a ticket to great hunting in Colorado. A few years ago nobody gave a crap about them, now you are communist if you support the system. I agree that there are "tag pimps" (sorry, love that term) out there that are exploiting the system. They tried to fix it last year and then they sold the voucher including the license so you couldn't read the landowners name on the voucher and you had to sign a contract to not hunt on the landowners land, that is wrong. Colorado isn't going to get away from the vouchers, the cattle lobby is huge in always every western state. The fix has to be in the transfer of the tags and the availablity of the land the tag was issued for. Just a few thoughts.

Rich
 
Some argue that the animals aren't there during the hunting season. For most of the private land in CO I call BS. How many times have you read on this and other websites, hunters asking where all the animals have gone in a certain unit? The answer is always private land. You can't sit there and honestly say that most of the animals throughout CO have not moved to, and been on private land for at least a few weeks, maybe even longer in some areas. So to say the landowner doesn't have to allow access because the animals aren't there during the season is a load, in most years. I certainly doubt it takes until Feb/March for these animals to move down. If it takes a little longer, why not have later seasons for these vouchers, similar to some of the PLO tags. Plus, why should the landowner be issued vouchers to hunt animals that aren't there in the season anyways? If the animals show up at later dates beyond a reasonable time to hold a hunt (Feb/March) they should be issued some other form of compensation.










It's Bush's fault!!!
 
I had a tag for eastern colorado with preference points and a landowner tag in my pocket at the same time. I used my points up and sold the tag to a friends daughter who killed an awesome buck and I got to be with her when she shot him. We gave the landowner the money, she killed an awesome buck and I got to be a part of it and also killed a good buck myself. Everyones happy including the landowner. I wonder how many people would have bought that tag that are against landowner tags? Im also wondering who got hurt by doing that ? Dont tell me the average Joe either because its all private and the average joe wouldnt put in the time and effort I have for permission on private land. Gary
 
I find it amazing that hunters would let jealousy of landowners and the people who buy their vouchers get to them so bad that they would throw away the fantasic hunting Colorado has . go ahead and raise a fuss I'll bet the landowners win, and if you win then you lose.
 
I certainly doubt it takes until
>Feb/March for these animals to
>move down. If it takes
>a little longer, why not
>have later seasons for these
>vouchers, similar to some of
>the PLO tags. Plus, why
>should the landowner be issued
>vouchers to hunt animals that
>aren't there in the season
>anyways? If the animals show
>up at later dates beyond
>a reasonable time to hold
>a hunt (Feb/March) they should
>be issued some other form
>of compensation.


srenim, I agree with everything you have said. good post with a different idea. Thank you.
 
Most of the Landowner vouchers are not landowner permits, they are unit wide permits they say nothing about landowner permits, the state does offer landowner permits as well,buck and does, as far as letting them on the private land in most cases I would rather hunt the public as most of the property owners either live to high or too low, last year we had true landowner doe permits for private land only, we couldnt even kill does because it was a apple orchard where the blooms froze and there were no apples so there were no deer, so there are many circumstances where there are properties that have deer only part of the year. The worst problem is the Landowner who has the 160 acres who never has a deer or elk on their land and is getting the permits, this should be addressed by division of wildlife enforcement!!!!!
 
"The worst problem is the Landowner who has the 160 acres who never has a deer or elk on their land and is getting the permits, this should be addressed by division of wildlife enforcement!!!!! "

Beartrap, very valid point, I agree 100%.
a3d


BTW: received this from wildlife comm.;-) Thanks.

"Thank you for your comments to the Wildlife Commission. This message acknowledges the receipt of your correspondence.

Your participation in the Commission's public input process is appreciated. Your letter will be read and processed on or before
December 28, 2006.

Katie Knoll
Policy and Regulations Section"
 
I guess I disagree with tying the vouchers to the current point system. I wish there was a place to go and get the info on who is buying the voucher ie Res. or NR. I would be willing to bet that the majority are being bought by NR. Under the current system the point creep is mostly if not all in the NR point side. The unit I keep up with is unit 61. A Res could still get drawn with 6 points even after the changes in the Regs. NR went up one year to 9 points and after talking to an DOW rep this past week, it appears that the drawn based on the numbers will go up at least to 10 this next year. That is not a creep it's a full scale jump. It means that the points are going up faster than you can draw.

The voucher system allows an individual to have a quality hunt in Colorado without having to wait 10-15 years. I don't see what is wrong with that. The Res already get 80% of the LE tags.

It doesn't take a math wiz to understand that by making those changes the DOW would make less money with everything being equal. To offset the lower NR tags the DOW fully expects and wants the NR to purchase the vouchers so that the tag income is not affected. By keeping the point system seperate, the DOW can make money on the NR when they buy a tag in 4-5 years (whatever then number is) when they are drawn for an LE unit. With ever change in a program there are unexpected concequences (sp). The Res. wanted less access to LE units for the NR and more for them. The DOW offset that with more tags available in the voucher system. Make no mistake about it the DOW is going to get their money (as they should) because they have to have it to operate.

As I stated before, you can't have your cake and eat it to.
 
The reason many are complaining about vouchers is:

1) The system is bi-passing the pref pt system and hunters that purchase vouchers can hunt every year. I don't believe this is fair to everyone that is waiting there turn in line. I don't believe it is as much of a jealousy issue but a matter of fairness!

2) The system was originally designed to relieve some of the hunting pressure on public land.

Public land hunting would likely improve if more hunters were forced to hunt private land with voucher tags and fewer hunters were hunting public land..right? You may want to go to the CDOW website and look at the GMU 20 management plan. The CDOW is trying to figure out a strategy for this exact problem.
 
BC, I have a feeling you are correct that nonres end up buying many of the voucher tags. It is an easy way to bi-pass the pref pt system and not have to wait to draw tags.

If more nonres purchase vouchers and are vying for only a few nonres premier tags it makes sense to me that not having a system where voucher purchasers are requred to burn their pref pts will only make it tougher for nonres to draw one of those tags? I have a feeling that having PLO tags in a pref pt system rather than vouchers would make it somewhat easier to draw some of the premier tags. It would also make it a lot fairer to the guys that waiting in line to draw high demand tags!

The few voucher tags that are sold in Colo is a drop in the bucket compared to all the nonres unlimited elk tags that are sold each year. I don't think the CDOW is going to fret over how many nonres vs res vouchers are sold?
 
BCHunter,
I think you misundertood my thoughts. If someone wants to purchase a voucher every single year, fine. But I don't think they should be allowed to compete with the people that don't in the regular draws. This would probabbly reduce voucher prices 20-40% and also reduce pref. points creep. The current system is nothing more than a way to purchase a preference point. Why else would vouchers that take 0 points to draw cost $500+.
 
I understand what y'all (jims and COSA) are saying. Is it fair that on Public Land not State Land that the Res. get 80% of the LE tags? The Federal Government and NR pay the bulk of the expenses. Not trying to start a fight just stating a fact.

Fair is in the eye of the beholder I guess. You get the majority of the LE tags at $45 a pop and we get to pay for it. I just don't understand how you think that the few vouchers that are sold hurt your hunting. It just seems that the Res of Colorado don't want any NR to have a quality hunt without having to wait 10-20 years but y'all want to be able to hunt LE units every 6-8 years with someone else footing the majority of the bill.

I guess I just see it as selfish. I can't afford a voucher in a good area so I am stuck with probably never hunting in an LE unit and I have 7 points right now. That's why I'm not very sympathetic to people who think they have a right to better hunting when the chips are stacked in their favor to start with.

Sorry for the rant.
 
BCHunter,
I'm not a resident of Colorado. And having people purchase vouchers lose their points has nothing to do with what percentage of tags is issued to nonresidents in CO(personally I think CO is more than fair). This would help draw odds in the general draw, and also reduce voucher prices a little. It just would not allow people to play both games, or have their cake and eat it too. From my understanding, vouchers make up 15% of the tags, so that would equate to a 15% of people losing their points, therefore less competition in the regular draw.
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-20-06 AT 11:23AM (MST)[p]If your stuck on 7 points you're missing the boat. There's plenty of good hunting out there to be had with far less than 7 points. Just ask guys like Zim who held onto points for too many years and end up shooting an average mature deer having had much higher expectations.

10 points does not equal a 200" buck, period.

You have a much better chance hunting an average area for 5-7 years, getting opportunities, learning the unit, and the animals in it, than the alternative and that is saving a bunch of points and hoping to come one week in one decade and kill the buck of your life.

The res/nonres split is a seperate issue but there is some obvious correlations. Regardless. in my opinion, public land hunting opportunities should not be up for sale by private parties regardless of what scenario you can concoct to try and justify it. Its inherently wrong.

(awkward phrasing, had to edit)
 
With 7 points you can hunt the LE area I hunt two years in a row for mule deer if you want, what are you talking about? Theres plenty of quality units you can hunt with that many points. Theres been preference point creep way before the landowner tags ever started too. The landowner tags have nothing to do with that or such a small percent it doesnt even matter. Gary
 
You guys can cry and compain all you want about fairness...Land owners deserve compensation for animals on there land.Competition is incredible for tags in every state.No one wants anyone else to have an advantage over them...States want more money to fund projects ect...MONEY TALKS...

I do agree if you get land owner vouchers, tag holders should be able to hunt your land[that was the original idea right?]

I also think the general public should have access to the land owner names and phone numbers of who got vouchers for that year...Others states do it...This eliminates Tag pimps.But prices will probobly still not come down that much...Not all tags cost 7000.Some are reasonable if you can find who has them...
 
Sorry for not stating this earlier but I am an Elk hunter. We hunt unit 62 every year so that we can keep tabs on and scout the herd in unit 61 while we wait.

If the vouchers are such a small part of the equation in your estimation then why does it matter if they get them or not?

We have been gaining on the points until the last changes in the regs. I ask the DOW in Denver if under the new regs with 7 points how long will it take me to draw and they said probable never. I can here you type "you can settle for a lesser unit". My question is why should I have too? The res under the current system will be able to hunt that unit twice before I will even have a remote chance if at all.

So if a person R or NR can buy a voucher and still play the game then why not. I may have to quit hunting every year and save up and buy a voucher if the system keeps going the way it is going. If anybody should be mad at the voucher system it should be people like me. However, I understand the money has to come from somewhere and it may be the only way I will get a chance to hunt an LE unit in my life time.

The landowners need to be compensated for helping with wildlife management. This seems to be the best way to do it. The only alternative is to pay them directly and raise tag prices which means make the NR tags even higher because the NR have no say in State politics and they will pay the price.
 
If the voucher system went away tomorrow, how much pressure would this bring to the current undersubscribed area? I tend to believe areas will no longer be undersubscribed for anyone to hunt every year? Would this increase the point creep? Or decrease it? Before I was quick to try and remove the vouchers I would personally like to see where the LO permits would go? Into the draw? Or just go away?

Seems this issue is pretty complex. I am not one to accept change real well, so I tend to be careful of what I ask for because I might just get it.

You guys in Colorado have a great deer herd. I would protect that first, then make changes as necessary. Small changes. You guys do not want the Utah herd, it sucks bad, so please be careful?
 
What lose is a landowner being compensated for? I dont understand what they are losing.

Here in Western Colo, where I live, game herds are not eating up the winter forage that a landowner may be using to feed his cattle. The have to provide supplemental feed to cattle anyway. MOst would not have enough forage for cattle even if there were no deer and elk. They also get to use public land in the summer to feed them taking a away from deer and elk.

If fences are needed to protect hay stacks or hay is being eaten the DOW provides monetary compensation for that as it is deemed necesary.

I cannot understand what a landowner that does not run cattle would loose due to having game on their property. If anything it makes their land worth more.
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-20-06 AT 01:10PM (MST)[p]"Is it fair that on Public Land not State Land that the Res. get 80% of the LE tags? The Federal Government and NR pay the bulk of the expenses. Not trying to start a fight just stating a fact."

You brought this up so I have to say something about it. IT is very fair that residents get more tags than NR's, even though it is "federal" land. This argument is the biggest bunch of BS, and here is why:
Residents of any state, do more to support and manage the wildlife in their state than the NR. Most NR's only want to come to hunt, therefore all they do is buy the license. Sure G&F makes a lot of money off the NR license, but they also make a significant amount from fishing licenses. Why don't they ever get mentioned in these arguments? Afterall, they pay a lot too. How many NR buy a fishing license? Not enough to make a significant impact. So just because you pay the NR fees for the license, you should get more tags? Do you come to the meetings to help get things done? Do you volunteer in the state you want to hunt for habitat improvement? There are tons of things that a lot of residents do throughout the year to help make hunting in their state better, for both them and NR's. Yes they do deserve more tags. The land being "federal" land has nothing to do with it. As a NR you can come to any state with "federal" land and use that land to your hearts content. You can do anything a resident can do, hike, climb, camp, watch wildlife, and enjoy your "federal" land. You just can't hunt at the same rate a resident can. And again, why should you be able to when it is the state, and its residents who do the most for its wildlife management, not the NR.


Now back to the issue at hand:
I think the problem most people have with the vouchers, at least what I've seen, is not jelousy or the fact that they are there. The problem I see, as has been mentioned, is that the landowner sells these vouchers, then doesn't let hunters use the land. If they want compensation for animals "tearing" up their land, they should give hunters access to help out.

"The landowners need to be compensated for helping with wildlife management."

Not sure I would say landowners are providing "wildlife management." If thats the case, everybody who buys a tag should be "compensated for wildlife management."
 
Hey Bc residents cant hunt twice to your once I dont know where you get your info? Yes, you will draw unit 61 if thats what your after eventually, no doubt. If you were going for 201 or something that would be a different story and that has nothing to do with landowner vouchers anyway. Gary
 
Cosa, if were going to play that game than why not mandate that those who go on a guided hunt on private property loses their points. It just don't make sense. Simply put, the Cdow compensates LO with a very small portion of the resource they support. Whether they use the voucher to wipe their a$$ or sell it to some rich turd from California that is their progitive. If we compensate them with cash are we going to tell them where to spend it.

Mike
 
Cabinfever,
Last time I checked those that hunted guided on private property still had to draw a tag or purchase a voucher. 15% is not a very small portion of the resource in my opinion.
 
Elkcrazy, Yes you can with point banking. You will use 6 points or less points to draw 61. If you have 2 points leftover then you would draw that unit again before I will if the creep doesn't get any worse (big assumption). It's going to take 10 points next year for a NR to draw at the very least and 6 points at the very most for a Res. Two times for a Res. is a very easy scenerio with the current system.

I never said that the NR should get an equal share. I thought the 65-35 split was more than fair. Whether you like it or not the Federal government and the NR pay the lions share of the cost. Also, I have requested that the DOW have some meeting on a Saturday so that it would make it easier for NR to make the meetings. They said no dice.

Everyone I have talked to from the DOW to the RMEF says NR are getting screwed (not just in Co.). It's just a fact. If NR are going to hunt then we have to live with it. Just because that's the way it is doesn't make it right.

The general concensus is that at some point (already starting in some States) the tag prices for NR is making hunters stay home. The rich guys get to play hence the voucher system. If thats the only way to play then I may join the game at the cost of not hunting every year. That's a choice that my hunting buddies and I discussed at camp this year when the camps ie hunters that we see every year since we started hunting 62 (7 years ago) have been cut in half because they said they are not going to keep paying. The money has to come from somewhere.

You can't log onto this site and not see hunters complaining about rich guys hunting on private ranches, reservations or Governer tags and shooting a real big animal and it being said it's not real hunting. The more that the NR are told we don't want you just your money by the Res. then you will see more and more of this type hunting. Just for the record, if it's not high fenced then it's real hunting. The outfitters will be allocated more tags because the DOW's need the revenue and NR hunters provide more per tag by a ton.

I guess my frustration is coming thru, but it does get on my nerves when someone will not step back and see the big picture. Hunting IS turning into a rich mans sport and hunters are the blame for most of it.
 
BC,
Not sure where you get your info, but point banking was a one time experimental thing done for the '06 season. As far as I know and have heard from the DOW, it is not going to happen again in '07. Also, show me where the Federal Govt and NR pay the "lions share." Obviously you did not read my post clearly, or you just don't understand. IF the Fed Govt payed the "lions share" license fees would not be as high as they are. You act like all residents are out to get the NR. That is not the case. There are many residents who fight for the NR. Maybe you should do a bit more research into who does what for the sake of knowing that not all residents hate non-residents. You may pay more for licenses, but why don't you step back and see the big picture; NR are NOT the ones who keep everything going in every state. Sure they make up a big chunk, but I bet you'd be surprised how much comes from other sources (ex. fishing licenses).






It's Bush's fault!!!
 
BC, I pretty much agree with everthing you said except the fence part.I also think the BIG PICTURE is even bigger than you think.
Money,greed ect.... plays into everything and if we think competition for tags and land is bad now,wait ten years.This is all going to spiral farther and farther down.WE all [hunters,ranchers,DWR ect] are to blame,everyone wants there cut...
 
BChunter,

I think that both NR and Residents would have a better chance of drawing without the voucher system (Getting rid of it is not what I'm advocating). This is because the Vouchers get drawn first, let's say 15% of the tags in 61 go to vouchers. So if there are 100 total tags then Vouchers get 15 tags. THEN residents get 80 % of those remaining which is 68 tags. The NR then get 17 tags. Without vouchers in the draw residents get 80 tags and NR get 20. Remove vouchers and you have a better chance of drawing. That's not going to happen but tie the vouchers to that property and make them transferable only once and the price for them will drop. It will remove the tag Pimps from the equation.

Also, there are no tags allocated to outfitters in Colorado (Yet).

Beanman
 
LOs have every incentive to keep critters on their property, especially during open season. Last month I witnessed outfitters herding elk back onto private ranches with ATVs and pick-ups after paying clients had shot at them. This was north of Craig. Are these the same LOs being awarded with vouchers to be used anywhere in the unit. Sounds like the system is being abused to me.

Cowboy Congress, Cowboy Laws.
 
sremim,

Even without the point banking, the scenerio I provided says that Res will hunt twice before a NR will hunt once under the current plan. It's almost 2 to 1 required points for Res vs NR (Res-6 points held stead for 3 years-NR 9 points with only 1/3 of the 9 point hunters getting drawn going up at least 1 point per year in last 2 years). Info was obtained from CDOW web site and talking to the DOW in Denver. They told me that the only thing that would help would be if hunters just quit applying. Less hunters, thats just what our sport needs.

I'll see if I can find the info that was posted in the NRA mag and Pertersons Hunting mag outlaying the cost paid by Res Nr and the Federal government. The Feds and NR acounted for 65-70% of the funds that operate the DOW.

I don't believe that all Res hate NR. However, the regs are set by the State governments that are elected by the Res so the majority have the attitude of we're going to get all we can get no matter what.

In Colorado I enjoy the fact we can buy over-the-counter tags. However, tag prices are getting out of hand. The think the 80-20 for LE units is abit much in any State. I think a good plan for the LE units and it would raise more money for the DOW's is if people who apply for an LE unit pay the same for the tag whether they are Res or NR. That would have a bigger affect on point creeping and help the DOW. Just a thought.
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-20-06 AT 04:21PM (MST)[p]Beanman, I see your point. However, if you eliminated the vouchers it would affect the NR tags by only 3 tags. Under a system without vouchers the most a NR could get would 20. Under the current system, a NR has access to 17 tags plus 15 that are vouchers totalling 32 tags. It's pretty much a wash for Res. with 80 without and 83 with the vouchers.
 
I have participated in the Preference Point system in Colorado for about 15 years as a non-resident. I originally got into the system as a means of participating in the Ranching For Wildlife Program, as it was originally open to non-residents. After applying unsuccessfully for approximately 7 years, the DOW changed the rules and told the non-resident "thanks, but no thanks" as far as the RFW Program was concerned. Of course, if the non-resident so chooses, he can still participate in the RFW Program, but only as a paying customer. The next logical step for me was to pursue the quality, trophy Units. The net effect was to concentrate the non-residents with 7-8 PP on the best Units in the State, thus "bracket creep" was created by limiting the non-residents from the RFW Program. Then, DOW decided that the 40% allocation for non-residents was unfair in these quality Units and that a more fair allocation would be 20%. Net result, further lmitation of the non-residents hunting choices and more "bracket creep". All the while, the non-residents license fees were suffering their own case of "bracket creep". Landowner vouchers are one of the few remaining choices for the non-resident. You guys are just fooling yourselves if you think for a second that the non-resident's license fees aren't carrying the mail for the DOW. Over time, the State of Colorado has told the non-resident that he is just a second class citizen. At some point, the non-resident will take his ball and go home. I know there a lot of folks that would be just fine with that, but would be in for a big surprise when it came time to fund the DOW without the non-resident's money.
 
>For those arguing that the average
>joe is priced out of
>the vouchers that is crap.
> There were plenty of
>vouchers out there for 400-800
>bucks this year. The
>same guys that are whining
>that only the rich can
>afford these are the ones
>plopping 500 bones for a
>shot at a raghorn bull.
> Yah they were for
>units that took 0-1 point,
>but at least you are
>hunting. Rackem: If you
>didn't like your experience, don't
>buy one next year.
>Anyone who did any research
>on the subject could assume
>that they were not going
>to be able to hunt
>the landowner's land.

Blacktail, I had a great hunt and the voucher was very inexpensive. My problem was that it was advertised that you could hunt the land, but the broker failed to tell the landowner. I took my best buck yet and was very happy all on public land, just unhappy with the misrepresentation.

Rackem

**************************************
INTERVIEW WITH GOD
http://www.livingwaters.com/interview/index.shtml
 

Similar threads

J
Colorado CPW Commissioner Debate!
Replies
36
Views
2k
jims
J
urge2hunt
Updated Mule Deer & Bull Elk Hunts for 2024
Replies
1
Views
1k
BUGLEnmIN
BUGLEnmIN
urge2hunt
Mule Deer Hunts Available for 2024
Replies
7
Views
2k
urge2hunt
urge2hunt

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

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

08803A22-E7CF-46C0-9BA0-547EA193CD2A.jpeg
Screenshot_20230812_220243_Video Player.jpg
D4809792-6AD7-47B9-9CDD-E5393A446EDF.jpeg
Screenshot_20200911-064308_Video Player.jpg
IMG_3628.jpg
68E1C853-408C-4FA5-8C7C-C3B8F8BACEE3.jpeg
060AE1D0-0F4E-4BCC-A32C-1CD79EE202C1.jpeg
DSCN2849.JPG
Big Velvet Muley
IMG_9134.jpeg
241195637_10226883815901955_893179839604024653_n.jpg
IMG_0934.jpg
Back
Top Bottom