Colorado Landowner voucher survey - please vote

G

Grasshopper

Active Member
Messages
178
I volunteered to be a sportsmen representative on the SAG voucher working group. SAG is the Sportsmens Advisory group to the Colorado Division of Wildlife.

I need your help.

The landowner preference voucher program in Colorado can be quite a controversial topic for those familiar with how the program is implemented today. I certainly have my opinons on the program, but what I am really seeking is information on how sportsmen at large feel about the program, and what.... if any, changes should be made to the program based on your input.

At this point, the commission has done what they can and any changes to the landowner preference voucher program would need to be made through legislation, which is a long, uphill, political process, and carries no guarantees - good or bad.

Our next work group meeting is Nov 24th. The workgroup currently has representation in the meetings from the cattlemens assoc, farm bureau, outfitters and sportsmen. It is a diverse work group, with diverse, and sometimes opposing opinions.

I have created a web site, with data provided by the CDOW that was studied & analysed by the Colorado Wildlife Federation. I am asking for your help in reviewing the information on the web site to become knowledgeable about the identified landowner program concerns, and then please take the survey I created to lodge your own input so I can better understand sportsmen's viewpoints.

Again, I am referring to the LANDOWNER PREFERENCE program, not game damage "kill tags" or private land only tags that any hunter can apply for in the general draw. Please review the information on my web site, the executive summary page & the slide set to review the CWF current state assessment, and then take the online survey.

If you have any questions, please email me.

Some poll questions are mandatory, others are optional. Their is a few fill in the blank, if you care to be long winded. Fill-in the blank questions are optional.

The poll is anonymous, no registration is required. I do have IP tracking enabled, please be honest, and just vote once. I do not have the time to reconcile data if I find multiple votes by one party are occuring.

I would also appreciate it if you would not post the link on other web sites. While I am inviting and encouraging input, I am also trying to use some form of a control process to understand the results.

Thanks for your help!

http://home.comcast.net/~arrowhd/
 
heres an article you might wanna read, or you may already have..==============================

statement from Pete and Ron?.

Who says AZSFW is for Landowner Tags?

By Pete Cimellaro and Ron Eichelberger

At no time have Ron Eichelberger or myself been an advocate for landowner tags. We have never seen a landowner tag system that could work here in Arizona.

To begin this story you have to go back to the 1980?s when elk numbers were high and conflict was raging between the Cattlemen, US Forest Service, AZ Game & Fish Department, and Sportsmen. The politics were just plain nasty, with everyone distrusting one another and working against any meaningful resolution of the problem.

During this time we regularly faced legislation to establish some kind of landowner tag program. Sportsmen and the department would beat it down in the legislature and the very next year we would be back doing the same thing, with nothing resolved.

In the early 1990?s, then, Speaker of the House Mark Kilian, established the Natural Resource Discussion Group at the Legislature. This group, made up of cattlemen, legislators, environmentalists, game & fish, sportsmen, etc., discussed many issues of conflict in an effort to find workable solutions. While no monumental solutions were found, better dialogue did take place and some trust was built between the stakeholders. This process lasted through several House Speakers, but eventually stopped.

After the Natural Resource Discussion Group ended, the conversations and discussion among former members continued. Most notably, discussions continued between the Cattleman and Sportsmen. Most of the talk was about resolving the cattle vs. elk issue, access issues and about our mutual enemies.

The most notable players were: Doc Lane, Bass Aja, Chas Erickson, Steve Smith, Benny Aja and others representing the cowboys, while Floyd Green, Hays Gilstrap, Chris Denham, Nancy Lewis, Ron Eichelberger, Suzanne Gilstrap and Pete Cimellaro represented the hunters. I have left out plenty of folks on both sides of this issue; some because they attended only a few meetings and many because I have simply forgot all of the names. This is a symptom of my advanced age and is only going to get worse.

One positive event that did take place was the Governors Elk Symposium in 2001. We brought together a lot of interested parties, met with the experts, and had some good discussion of the conflicts between elk, cattle and the people that support each of them. The negative crowd was there too, saying the symposium was only a platform for landowner tags. But, once again, there were no monumental revelations or life changing solutions offered up, and no landowner tags either, just good dialogue and a willingness to continue talking.

Some of us have continued to attend each others meetings and argue the issues, never coming to any consensus or finding a solution. We have agreed to continue dialogue on these issues and will continue to do so because it is the responsible thing to do. None of us have a lock on the use of our public lands and whenever possible multiple users must respect the needs of all stakeholders. More importantly we must continue to have open dialogue on these important issues.

During 2005 the next chapter in this ongoing saga unfolded and you might have already guessed that Ron and I are right in the middle of it. Because of our involvement with Arizona Sportsmen for Wildlife (AZSFW) we have been tabbed by an unknowing, or worse yet, malicious few, as wanting to bring landowner tags to Arizona. I assume this is because in some states Sportsmen for Wildlife (SFW) has been behind landowner tags and much of their influence hinges on the money raised by these tags.

The difference here is that we have started AZSFW, not SFW. We have our own separate corporation and organization. We did this because we wanted to be autonomous to a great degree while still working with SFW chapters on national issues. Up front, we told SFW that landowner tags in Arizona wouldn't fly and that we would continue to help lead the opposition of any landowner tag program. They are and we are fine with this arrangement! Below is an excerpt from the AZSFW policy and issues statement.

?Oppose any legislation or rule that allows for the creation of landowner tags for big game, while endeavoring to identify ways to address legitimate landowner depredation issues.?

This statement goes right to the heart of the issue. No, on landowner tags but let's keep talking about our issues. This is where Ron and I have been from the start and where AZSFW is now. We challenge anyone to provide any evidence to the contrary!

One other perceived conflict we would like to address is the laughable charge that Ron and I, because we are outfitters, want landowner tags.

No one has been more vocal in their opposition to USO (George Taulman) than Ron and me. We have been vocal to the point we have alienated some Arizona outfitters. Tough! What is most important is that wildlife thrives here in Arizona. In order for that to happen we need a solid hunting base. This base must be built upon resident hunters (you and your kids), not nonresidents who come and go. While I appreciate nonresident contributions, they alone cannot sustain our wildlife programs; that burden lies squarely on the residents. If we have a solid resident hunter pool, volunteer interest, additional fundraising and political involvement, then maybe wildlife has a chance. Without these elements, we all know the future for wildlife is bleak.

To put an exclamation point on this issue: Who was the lead in this year?s passage of HB 2127 (the legislation that insures at least 90% of Arizona?s big game tags will go to its residents)? You guessed it, AZSFW. It makes absolutely no sense for Ron and I, or AZSFW, to support HB 2127, if what we really wanted was landowner tags or unlimited nonresident hunting opportunities.

In closing, please judge us on our fifty years of sportsmen conservation work. Do not listen to the voices of a questionable few, with unknown motives, to make your judgment. Judge AZSFW by the people who stand before you to promote it, and by what it does, not by what a few say it will do!

This entry was posted on Tuesday, August 8th, 2006 at 10:02 pm and is filed under Arizona News. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
 
Useless gibberish! There was no science or any arguments as to the pros and cons of landowner tags. I fully support the landowner tag systems.
 
If you would have read the executive summary page, ~2200 tags went unused, by any hunters. Thats a scientific fact, and any "argument" to it would be false.


I'll be glad to share the results once polling concludes.

Thanks
 
Muley Master,
It's much worse than useless gibberish. It's totally bias and filled with half truths. As to the 2200 unredeemed vouchers, ask how many unused public leftover tags go unsold with no monies going to DOW and how many of the unused vouchers are prepaid for by the participating landowner. In many cases DOW gets paid for the voucher twice, once by the landowner and again by the redeeming hunter. Also when DOW sets tag numbers you can bet that these unused vouchers numbers are figured into the quotas. It's very easy to get the results you want from a survey when only showing one side of an issue very much like a 30 min info commerical on TV.
 
I'll weigh in here since i know very little about it, LOL...I just don't like how unruly the price's can get, once again it becomes a rich mans comodity.....

in genral they don't hurt nothing...my 2 cents...
 
The 2200 as reported by CWF, were in sold out units, so sorry Larry, but public hunters were denied the tags.

I'm not really here for a debate, just looking for public opinion.

So far, I have had some great input, and I trust you will read all the survey results in the next meeting Larry so you can support the majority of sportsmen, based on thier opinions - not mine or yours..
 
Manny
The new regulations have only made the price increase. In the past I always gave (free) a few away with the understanding they could only hunt my land the last weekend of the season. Now with the new rules (unrestricted access to the land for the entire season, etc.) I can no longer do that. It's a shame to trash a good program because of the few that abuse it.
 
I feel a need to respond.

No doubt you feel it is a good program Larry....

$3.25 to buy a voucher from the CDOW, resale price $3500 to what? 15,000 maybe? What is that gross margin?

With the access loophole supposedly closing, in my opinion most of the vouchers will go to outfitters, and the number of unreedemed vouchers will go up. If an outfitter has an exclusive lease...the only way a voucher buyer will get property access is via that outfitter who holds the access right. No wonder you like it.

Very generous of you to pass out a couple doe tags. Stand up guy.
 
Steve,
Why would I or anyone want to waste the time to read the results of your slanted survey? That's right up there with reading the National Enquirer.
You are entitled to your opinion but don't try to pass it off as fact.
 
Steve,
I also feel a need to reply as again your spouting half truths.
Problem is if people keep hearing the same misinformation sooner or later they start to believe then.

Just one of the reasons I like the program for the contribution landowners make to wildlife. Sure didn't read anything like that in your one sided survey.
 
Duh, Maybe you should read it because you are supposed to be representing sportsman in SAG?

If sportsmen take the time to fill it out, and tell you how they feel - you should read it. If you don't, you should drop out of SAG.
 
That was really long winded..."contributions to wildlife".

Feel free to expand on that Larry, be verbose, please. No one other then CWF stepped up to the plate and gave me data to publish about how great landowner preference is for wildlife. If you have data to share please do it.

In my opinion the real question at hand is if landowner preference is good for the future of hunting. Thats why I am asking hunters.

I can tell you, the results so far don't neccesarily align with my own personal opinions, but I will sure cast my support for the results.

As I have asked you previously, will you?
 
I have never been a fan of landowner vouchers! But here are my complaints with the current system:

COMPLAINT #1: I believe 15% of the total tags are issued as landowner vouchers irregardless of whether 1 or 100% of a unit is public or private land. This seems like a significant number of tags in units that are almost entirely public land (Western Colo) and fairly low in units that are almost entirely private (Eastern Plains)!

COMPLAINT #2: Landowner vouchers are currently valid on public and private land throughout a unit. This often only adds hunting pressure on public land since hunters have the option of hunting public. The CDOW is constantly trying to figure out strategies to place more hunting pressure on private land. Eliminating voucher hunters from hunting public land would elieviate pressure on public land and would force more access and hunting pressure on private lands.

With the current system landowners are required to allow voucher hunters access to their private land and this has always been a major headache and battle between the DOW, hunters, and landowners!

COMPLAINT #3: What the heck is wrong with private land only draw tags rather than landowner vouchers? Currently the draw odds for PLO tags are extremely good in almost all units. PLO tags in a drawing allow everyone a fair chance to draw these tags without all the headaches associated with landowner vouchers.

PLO tags are available to everyone at the cost of a regular license fee. It is up to the hunter to secure permission, pay a trespass fee, or contact an outfitter for guided hunts on private land. PLO tags would just about eliminate all the problems associated with the current voucher system.

COMPLAINT #4: Similar to complaint #1 but here goes....Most units east of I25 are 80 to 100% private land while West of I25 much less than that. Lands east of I25 should have an entire different landowner voucher system than west of I25.

A simple solution west of I25 would be to hand out a proportion of voucher tags (15% or less of total tags) depending upon the % private/public land. There are many units in Western Colo that are almost entirely public land and hunters vying for few limited tags are getting screwed!

COMPLAINT #5: Currently hunters that purchase vouchers do not use any preference pts. This does not seem fair to other hunters that have stood in line waiting their chance to draw tags. Some of the "premier" units may take a lifetime to draw while a voucher hunter can purchase a tag and hunt without impacting his pref pt status.
 
Make landowner vouchers valid only to the property in which they were issued and it would solve a vaste majority of the abuse issues regarding the marketing of vouchers in premium units.

Have a different system for the eastern plains if neccessary but stop the brutal marketing of public hunting opportunites on public land on the West slope. Our hunting opportunities should not be for sale to the highest bidder.
 
>Make landowner vouchers valid only to
>the property in which they
>were issued and it would
>solve a vaste majority of
>the abuse issues regarding the
>marketing of vouchers in premium
>units.
>
>Have a different system for the
>eastern plains if neccessary but
>stop the brutal marketing of
>public hunting opportunites on public
>land on the West slope.
> Our hunting opportunities should
>not be for sale to
>the highest bidder.


yah ... ditto ... won't happen but ditto
 
grasshopper,

It appears to me you have your agenda, are you representing sportsman or just your own agenda. From what I have read it is obvious you are against them so why take your survey?

Rich
 
lostinOregon,
You singled out the wrong "sportsman's" representative from the SAG voucher working group in your post. If you want to see who has a personal agenda, think about which representative posting on this thread has the most to gain by continuing the voucher program. Grasshopper's "personal agenda" would benefit all sportsmen equally, while Elkfitter's "personal agenda" would benefit the small percentage of sportsmen who can 'pay to play', and at the same time, will line his own pockets. It is absurd to think that Elkfitter can be a "sportsman's" representative without bias.

One simple solution to this whole issue: limit vouchers to private land only and allow them to function as they were intended.
 
ColoradoOak, for the record I did not want to be on this special committee of SAG. I was asked to participate by the SAG Co-chair and others, NOT by landowners and outfitters. I did agree to participate after being reassured that the majority of the group were looking for solutions to make the program work for all stakeholders and hopefully eliminate abuses.
I, as well as the majority of the group voted for a survey that we as a group could agree on. We wanted both sides of the issue presented with the survey and the questions to be asked in a fair manner. We as a group agreed to get more facts/data from DOW so that the survey and other info given would be accurate and up to date as possible.
One member of the group came up with the survey that has been presented to you and others. This is HIS survey and not from the SAG group. It does omit facts and in my opinion it's slanted, that is why I'm against it. I also have to question if this survey will have tainted any fair and unbiased survey that is submitted to the public in the future.
 
Colorado Oak,

I am not naive to think that Elkfitter doesn't have a interest in this fight. Having said that does it make his points in valid and he can't have an opinion. However, I found it interesting that all of the posts were negative towards landowner vouchers. If you are on one side of the court before the ball is thrown up then you really don't have a fair game. I find it ironic that landowner tags are such a hot topic in Colorado when no body blinks an eye at Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, etc... Everytime someone defends the voucher system they are attacked on this site.

If the problem is that vouchers are not redeemed, then put something in the law that prohibits a landowner from applying for vouchers in the future if his vouchers are not used from the previous season.

You have to have landowners in the ball game as it comes to game management. Especially if there is winter range habitat issues as there is across the western front.

Colorado is an amazing state to hunt deer in IMHO, I would be more concerned about raising tag numbers and hurting the quality that you currently have in place.

Rich
 
if tags are limited to the property that they are issued from the landowners will not participate in the program. also too many tags leftover that go directly to the few landowners that put in for extras, hich would create way too much preasure on the private land (the landowner who gets 20 tags with only 160 acres). limiting them to land they are issued from would pretty much eliminate the program except for the big ranches where outfitters can get 12000 for an elk hunt. i know enough landowners who would get out which would hurt the program. something needs to be done though with the rising (ridiculous prices) cost of these tags. 1500 dollars for tag that you can draw with no pts. crazy, just my thoughts
 
lostinOregon,
I'm not familiar with the landowner license programs in other states. If you haven't already done so, I encourage you to read the facts presented in Bob Goodnough's summary of the history of landowner preference in Colorado. You will see why many people feel that the voucher system is not working as it was designed, and would like to see major changes made.

Elkfitter,
Thanks for participating in the working group. I'm hopeful, but not optimistic, landowners will concede the abuses of the current system so that it may function as it was originally intended. I just don't see them agreeing to make vouchers valid on private land only.
 
LAND use it what this fight is about, If a landowner gets a tag the person who ends up with that tag SHOULD be hunting that ranch and not the pulic land around it, Some augue that this will take some ranches out of the mix, so be it, it just means that they was on the CDOW welfare list for tags,Those ranches who get too many tags for the amount of animals that are on their ranch would quit if they can't shove those extra hunters out on public land(where we all are still waiting for a draw)
Take the program back where it was designed to do the good and that was to help ranches with the problem of too many animals on ranch lands during winter seasons.
I know a few guys that get tags for ranches that the herd just passes thru come hunting season they don't have many animals but still sell "ranch Tags" for good money so you can hunt the PUBLIC lands and NOT the Ranch.
New Mexico has a pretty good way of doing things.
 
I dont have a problem with Landowner Vouchers in principal. What I do have a problem with is the exploitation of these tags by a few people. I have seen their business practices first hand and its disgusting. I have seen tags swap hands 3 and 4 times. I have seen guys "sell" a tag to one person then call them back and tell them that they were offered more and want them to bid on it.

I believe that if a Landowner wants to sell these tags then he should have two options. Either hunt your land only with the tags or open up your ranch to the public during the season. I feel that these landowners would not be such in favor of this program after a season in which 10,000 people from Utah invade their little sanctuary.

Drum



dan-henderson_wanderlei-silva.gif
 
This all boils down to jealousy, of the landownwer owning the land, getting the tag, and the guy who buys the tag.

Are you really willing to sacrifice the fantastic thing Colorado has going over a little petty jealosy? the landowner gets the tag as compensation for the game coming on and off his land all year long. as in my case here in Oregon I have 100 or so elk on my property off and on and my landowner tags are next to worthless because in Oregon it's only good for your deeded ground. the elk are on public land 90% of the time during season so what do most landowners push for? depredation hunts, and we have them fron August until May. is that what you want?

The tag belongs to the landowner, if he wants to use it, sell it or blow his nose with it what business is it of yours? you've got the best deer hunting in the world and the largest elk herds also, if screwing that up just to spite the landowner or the guy with the money to buy his tag is worth it to you then you'll get what you deserve.

Hunters are their own worst enemy.
 
I don't get the sacrifice thing, It comes down to a landowner selling tags for his ranch for that hunter to hunt public land and not the ranch he got the tags for. Who is sacrifice what seems to me that the public land hunter is the one who is sacrificing tags to hunt the same ground.
The money guys will still buy whatever hunt they want WHY becuase they have the money so I don't see how this will stop they or even slow them down.
 
Jealousy? Who is their to be jealous of with the ~2200 UNUSED hunting licenses? Should we be jealous of landowner that paid the application fee and got nothing in return? Should we be jealous of the hunter who never bought the license? Or should we be jealous of the hunter who was denied the license in units that were sold out, but had unused vouchers? Please, at least read the information before you draw conclusions...

Your right hunters are their worst own enemies, but not because we disagree on controversial topics. Hunters are their worst own enemies because very few educate themselves thoroughly on issues and formulate an objective opinion, very few show up at meetings where decisons get made (unless they have income at risk), and lastly because very few vote at voting polls, and call legislators to voice their own opinions. As well, the guys who do stand up and volunteer for what they belive is right - continually get slammed, which in turn demotivates anyone who is human.

I've been told my presentation is biased, I am promoting an agenda, I am selfish, slanted and now jealous. The reality is I am acting as a volunteer, and so is the CWF. I made my survey intentions known back in July, I asked "pro-voucher" advocates on several occasions for information I could post to share what the "benefits" might be, and to date I haven't got anything from them. Being a volunteer, time was of the essence, and I took action with what I had.

All that said, I have had a wonderful repsonse, that does not neccesarily represent my opinion...so thanks
 
My opinion: there is definately abuses to the system, however, the flip side is that landowners MUST get some compensation for allowing access to their respective properties, and get compensated for the depredation on the property by the public owned wildlife If this is just a trespass fee, unfortunately, most landowners don't have time to negotiate this before each season starts, so they just throw up "no hunting" signs.
I also believe that it is being abused and that there is not enough access for "average joes" to hunt prime land. Hunting eastern colorado property for most is well beyond the self imposed budgets set for hunting. I personally bought a "conservation permit" in Utah that changed hands 3 times, with an increase each time. Looking back now, I was probably out of my mind to buy a deer tag for that much.
I too believe vouchers should be as a percentage of public/private land. For instance, if 50% of the land is private, 25% of tags should be vouchers. But most tags should be for private land. I say most because there are properties that game animals ONLY use during the winter, when landowners are trying to keep them out of hay. The other public tags should have access to the private land of those participating in the voucher program. As long as this access is controlled by the landowner.
 
Who cares if some landowner tags went unused? you afraid a few more deer lived through season? I love hunting in Colorado but I can't say a hunter shortage was a problem to me. the tags belong to the landowner, it's none of your business as long as he lets your game winter on his ground.

The bottom line is I've hunted 8 western states and Colorado's deer hunting is the best I've seen anywhere at any time in my lifetime. I can promise you if the landowners are denied any insentive to put up with the game many won't, tick them off and they'll make it a priority. limiting the vouchers to deeded ground will devalue them to that point.

This is up to residents of Colorado, before you do anything you'll regret try hunting in states like Oregon where a good share of the landowners want the game dead and see if you like what you get. you're spoiled by the standards most of us go by, we can't wait to come back to the very situation you're griping about. without landowner cooperation most game herds in the west are doomed, think it all the way through and don't try to fix something that's not broken.
 
>I can promise you if
>the landowners are denied any
>insentive to put up with
>the game many won't, tick
>them off and they'll make
>it a priority. limiting the
>vouchers to deeded ground will
>devalue them to that point.

huntindude,
Your argument is not logical. You argue that landowners need vouchers to sell to offset the cost to them of big game on their land. Landowners can simply charge an access fee to hunt those animals to any successful applicant in the general draw. This has a twofold benefit to the landowner: monetary compensation for big game use of the property and a reduction in the number of animals using the property. The problem is that landowners want to have their cake and eat it, too. Most really want the animals on their property, either for personal hunting opportunity or to sell access to the segment of the hunting public willing to pay. If the issue for landowners is really big game use of their property, there are many ways within the current system, without vouchers, to compensate them for this use. Landowners fighting to keep the voucher system are greedy, and there's no way around that fact.
 
ColoradoOak has hit it in the head. It's all become about greed. Guides representing themselves as landowners and other greedy individuals trying to make a big buck off of hunting. The program has strayed very far away from it's original intent and it is time to fix it.

The only way to fix it will be to make LO tags good only for Private land. It's going to have to go to a vote of the people of the state of Colorado. Generaly that is not a good thing but it is this case I think we will see it on the ballot in the near future unless the Colorado Wildlife Commission changes their tune.

I know where my vote will be cast.


Beanman
 
Thats the way it is here now here, it doesn't work too well because the bulk game isn't here until winter. winter and spring hunts is what you're going to get, it's not pretty and I don't allow it on my land but I'm the minority.

Is it really greed or just the pay off they desereve and won't tolerate the game without? landowner tags for deeded land only might satisfy the huge landowners with year round game but the smaller and low land guys will not be able to recover any losses with their worthless tags. from what I've seen in Colorado there are many small ranchers who'll be in that boat. feeder hay is $150 in many places this year and the pasture the game takes is going to cost that much to replace not to mention the hay itself that they munch, fence repair and you name it this all ads up. greed or just payment? we're talking thousands not hundreds here.

It's your state, I'm just happy when I get the chance to hunt it. private land ownership has more rights than you may think, the game could be the loser and so will you. I hope you don't screw up a good thing, you don't know how good you have it, I mean that.
 
I'm still trying to figure out how landowners in all the states that dont have landowner tags make it? Why are Colorado landowners so special from the others?

The Deer & Elk are a natural part of the land, and always have been before the white man came and made the land private

They dont own the wildlife

Just about all the private land in this State is LEASED! So they are making money.

IMO, if they recieve landowner tags, then their land should be open to pulic hunting, since its the publics wildlife they received a tag for.

If Colorado wants to issue landowners a "Hunt Own Land" tag for those with "X" amount of acreage, I'm fine with that, but not tags that are sellable and good unit wide for public land as well.
 
I want to reiterate what Huntindude is saying. In Oregon landowners now can get damage permits to kill anything that is causing crop damage or degredation to property. There is no incentive to grow big deer/elk or anything else. How many big deer/elk come from Oregon. How many high profile outfitters have you heard of from Oregon. They are slaughtered at the drop of a hat on the winter ranges because they have no VALUE. ODFW issues thousands of these permits to kill and none are going to hunters. If you don't include the landowners and make some benefit to keep the wildlife in balance you will win in the short but will loose long term.

Rich
 
lostinOregon,
Unfortunately, you scenario is not an "either, or". Colorado landowners already receive damage tag vouchers when big game animals are damaging crops. In fact, would you believe that in northwestern Colorado, where the antelope population has been severely depressed the last few years and tag numbers cut, landowners have received numerous damage tag vouchers for doe antelope. Some individual landowners have received up to 30 vouchers in a unit that only has about 130 doe tags available to the general public in the draw.
 
It appears from the sample of Colorado hunters we have here the fight is on, that's too bad. as NR we may be out of the loop a little but as hunters from a state that has what you want take our word for it, it's going to bite you in the butt.

Colorado has some fantastic habitat and genetics, you also have some good managment and a compromise with the landowners that for the most part works. you have a large population and lots of private land, yet your hunting is great and the chance of drawing a good tag is not that bad for most hunts. why stir the pot? I honestly wish I could take each of you out for an Oregon deer hunt, you'ld return with gifts for CDOW and the landowners to show your gratitude.
 
ColoradoOak
What do damage tags have to do with Landowner vouchers?
Damage tags are not sellable.
 
Elkfitter,
I only brought up damage tags because huntindude suggested that if landowners don't have an incentive to keep game animals on their property, then they will kill as many of them off with damage tags. Just pointing out that it is already happening. Doe antelope and cow elk damage tags are quite common on private property that is fee-accessed during the regular season. Damage tags are not sellable, but the landowner still decides who gets them, with no benefit to the general hunting public. A few years ago a landowner near Craig was given damage antelope doe tag vouchers because of antelope in his wheat. I asked him if I could hunt a buck and he said sure, for $600. Greedy, greedy, greedy....
 
Grasshopper deserves a big pat on the back for volunteering to tackle this controversial subject. If you look at the makeup of the SAG and Wildlife Commission it's obviously an uphill battle. Anyone who makes money from the vouchers doesn't want the program changed. This legislation was introduced by the powerful farm/ranching lobby because they couldn't get what they wanted through the DOW. Now DOW can't touch the program, it can only be changed through legislation. Not an easy thing to do. Wildlife management isn't something that the public should voting on. Leave it up to the DOW to set and change policy as they see fit.

JIMS post #15 does a nice job of identifying the problems. This program needs to be overhauled and I will support any measures attempting to do so.
 
Ya some of you make me sick! I hope it never changes in Colorado from what it is now.. I hope the Landowners continue to make money selling vouchers all day long. Its their land and if you want to hunt on it your gonna pay for it! Some of you make me laugh! If it was your land (and i guarantee most of you dream of having it) you would be very opposed to not being able to charge mega bucks for the vouchers! What a freekin joke! ITs always about the "money guy"! Go get a different job or create wealth for yourself if it keeps you up at night! Its the way it is and for you to ##### about the landowners whom consider themselves average joes for the most part is pothetic!! Grasshopper.. I hope you go nowhere with this one!!!!
 
Rammu,

You apparently have very poor reading and comprehension skills. This issue is not whether or not there should be LO tags but if they should be good unit wide on public ground.

LO tag that are for private land only are fine with me and I don't even care if they let tag pimps sell them. But, when they include the whole unit and exclude use of their land as has been the standard practice then it is a problem.

BeanMan
 
As you know I am a non resident who won't have much say in the matter. I hope to potray that there is much more to the picture than meets the eye and that you are very fortunate to live in Colorado and have that type of quality hunting. This thing is going to get bloody, I am hoping in several years you look back and this doesn't change the quality of hunting in colorado.

There already is a push by the retail industries (motels, restaurants, small towns) to allocate more tags, so when the landowners don't care about tag numbers and you loose their lobby what is stopping DOW from increasing the tag numbers?

I just hope everyone thinks long and hard about their decisions.

Rich
 
No matter what happens in this whole process it will not make everyone happy. The landowner program is not perfect and there never will be an ideal program that will fit the needs and wants of all the different stakeholders.

Waygoner, for your information the landowner program was not initiated by the legislature. The DOW, Landowners, Sportsmen, and other stakeholders were involved in a 18-24 month process, putting this program together, then they found a sponser for the bill. The process was lengthy and all stakeholders were invloved to make sure when presented the bill would not be opposed.

My question to all that oppose the current program is. Would this even be an issue if Colorado didn't have trophy mule deer? No, it would not. Nobody opposed the old landowner program when we didn't have trophy animals in every unit in the state.

Every year Colorado losses thousands of acres of prime mule deer and elk habitat to development and now oil and gas exploration.

What's wrong with a program that may provide incentive to a rancher or farmer to stay in business rather than sell for development. I guess the folks that oppose the program would rather see condos and townhomes than mule deer and elk.

It is not a perfect program and never will be. But limiting the vouchers to private land only will only solve one issue and then create another. In many cases the animals are not necessarily on the private property during the exsisting hunting seasons. Should we create more seasons when the animals are on the specific private property. Sure why not, we don't have enough hunting seasons now. lol

Are there abuses within the current system, sure. There always will be some bad apples, there always is.

I think we should just go back to OTC mule deer tags, then there wouldn't be an issue. It all boils down to the haves and have not's. If everyone could afford the vouchers and every landowner allowed access on all the property, everyone would be happy, well guess what, people in hell want ice water.

My hat is off to the folks involoved in the process, its alot of hard work. I just hope the ones involoved will look at the whole picture and not just their own. No matter what happens not everyone will be happy. Good luck.
 
>
>Waygoner, for your information the
>landowner program was not initiated
>by the legislature. The
>DOW, Landowners, Sportsmen, and other
>stakeholders were involved in a
>18-24 month process, putting this
>program together, then they found
>a sponser for the bill.

Skeet - Can you tell me why it was necessary to introduce this as legislation? Why couldn't the DOW develop the voucher system?
 
I cannot answer that fully. I believe any change in how licenses are issued, other than the normal over the counter or regular drawing would require legislation. I am not certain on this however.
 
Here is my statement about landowner vouchers.
Keep the outfitters out of it. Keep the outfitters out of any tag preference system. Keep all tags on an even play field, and let anybody hire an outfitter if they please AFTER the tags have been drawn or purchased. There are too many outfitter usuing land locked public land the way it is.
 
My vote is No Landowner tags and no allocations to outfitters. Land owners can charge trespass fees if they have animals on their property and get compensation without landowner tags to sale and people should be free to chose weather they want to use an outfitter without the government making sure the outfitters get clients. Wyoming is proof that outfitters can still do well without the government helping and land owners can still get compensated.
WYHunter
 

Similar threads

gr8fuldoug
Armasight Sidekick 320 Mini Thermal
Replies
0
Views
87
gr8fuldoug
gr8fuldoug
M
Cody Region Meetings 2024
Replies
12
Views
714
nfh
nfh
gr8fuldoug
Just Arrived
Replies
0
Views
326
gr8fuldoug
gr8fuldoug

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

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

IMG_7828.jpeg
20211115_173531.jpg
6E33D6F8-B7D6-41B3-9E0E-E100BC6CE1A5.jpeg
Amazing Hooked Cheater Buck!
AZ elk 2.jpeg
IMG_6796.jpeg
IMG_20191019_074730.jpg
93F29953-E41F-4BB6-8567-ED7923C44962.jpeg
191B48AB-02F1-45FF-8DA0-089A4E082DCC.jpeg
20231202_123605.jpg
5594F749-7DCC-44CA-9F89-4F6BF5D7B9CE.jpeg
7EAA4835-C833-4F28-B7D3-5226327E87AA.jpeg
Back
Top Bottom