Landowner Preference In Colorado

[walltenthunter]

In Colorado the Division of Wildlife set forth recently a License Allocation Committee to review and make recommendations forward to the Colorado Wildlife Commission as it relates to a number of issues on license allocation. Included are 6 sportsmen, 4 landowners, 2 outfitters, 2 govt. representatives, and 1 business representative. At the forefront of issues is Landowner Preference. The essence is that landowners would like a higher allocation of licenses than the 15% they now have. This preference applies to all deer and antelope units since they are statewide 'limited' and another 30 elk units where ALL the rifle seasons are limited. In elk units where all rifle seasons are not not limited, landowners have no preference.

Landowner preference began in the 1980s as an entitlement to licenses which could then be used or transferred by that landowner. In 2000 the Colorado legislature approved new legislation which now allowed that landowner preference to be either of licenses or vouchers. Vouchers can be sold and the profits retained. The vouchers are normally good for the entire unit, and can bring an average of $1,000 for buck tags or $3,000 for bull elk tags. Cow tags can be $350 or so.

For sake of discussion, it is important hunters know Colorado landowners with 160 acres can today enter two draws: (1) the the private landowner draw and (b) the public draw. Under the public draw they can only get a license, yet the point is landowners have the ability to already outcompete ordinary hunters for limited licenses. Also, 30% of the landowner vouchers issued last year were un-redeemed, which means the landowners never sold or transferred them to anyone else. 90% of those vouchers wasted were for units fully subscribed (had no excess licenses). Those non redeeemed vouchers ended up having no hunting licenses issued nor any money flowing back to DOW for wildlife management.

Another issue that bugs sportsmen is that the landowner preference system has an intended limit of 6 vouchers per landowner application, yet last year 345 landowners received more than 6, and as a group those 345 landowners averaged just over 12 vouchers, and one rancher got 56. Another 532 landowners got none. The disparity of how many vouchers ranchers/farmers get is HUGE.

My perspective as sportsmen is that the landowners re-allocate what they want, remain within the 15% preference they now have.

To be sure, a higher preference for landowners means fewer limited licenses for ordinary hunters (non-resident and resident). Additionally, a higher landowner preference would also mean the required # of preference pts. would go UP, something near and dear to all of us deer and elk hunters. For the 6-15 pts. now required for quality elk units, hunters would now have to wait even longer. Then for the muley and whitetail tags we all covet, higher landowner preference would mean waiting more years between hunts, or hunting over the counter units more years that we would prefer.

Another matter is what might be offered in consideration for sportsmen giving up some of the 85% of limited licenses wenow have. I would think it need be HUGE. I see nothing offered.


I would like to hear your hunter perspectives. For more information on the License Allocation Committee, pull up the Colorado Division of Wildlife website @ http://wildlife.state.co.us

Also, please do forward your perspectives to the the Colorado Wildlife Commission @ 6060 Broadway, Denver, CO. 80216

Colorado today is #1 on deer hunting quality plus Colorado has 1 of 5 elk in all of North America. All hunters whom would hunt Colorado for big game have a stake in this outcome. I hope this post better informed you, and please provide me your perspectives.

Sportsman

 

[txhunter58]

I have no problem with landowner vouchers that are PRIVATE LAND ONLY. Even if really big ranchers get lots of tags to be used only on the ranch, I still have no problem. However, I dissagree entirely that they should be allowed to get vouchers that they can sell for PUBLIC land hunts and not even allow access to their land for hunting.

Esentially, the DOW is currently giving away tags that ranchers are selling as a public land hunt ONLY. They don't allow access to their ranch at all. I understand that they are trying to "reimburse" landowners for "supporting" habitat for wildlife, but again, I see no reason they should be able to sell public land hunting tags.

So my suggestion is to continue private land only tags up to 15% but do away totally with unit wide landowner tags.

txhunter58

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

 

[walltenthunter]

Good point, although vouchers are normally good for the entire game unit, not just the landowner's property. People VERY familiar with vouchers in terms of marketing them have told me that if such a voucher's license was restricted to that private landowner's property, that voucher's market value would plummet. Now guess if the landowners would be in favor of such.

Another issue with vouchers is conveying authority to private property owners over whom hunts public lands. A public dominion outsourced to private property interests. Even the PLO tags restrict hunting to private lands only. What I hear more and more from hunters is that private lands vouchers be goof only for private lands. This might just help public lands by shifting hunting pressure to private lands, where we need it.

 

[txhunter58]

> People VERY
>familiar with vouchers in terms
>of marketing them have told
>me that if such a
>voucher's license was restricted to
>that private landowner's property, that
>voucher's market value would plummet.


Exactly my point, the value of the vouchers would drop to $0 because they DO NOT allow access to their property. They are selling ONLY public land hunts. That is not right IMHO.


txhunter58

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

 

[Gator]

Maybe if a land owner got 10 tags Half would be unit wide and 1/2 would be ranch only, if he got 5 tags 3 would be unit wide and 2 would be ranch only, You could still use the unit wide on the ranch.

 

[Founder]

Landowner vouchers are not only given to landowners because they offer access to their land. You are right, few do anyway. As I see it, landowner vouchers are compensation for landowners tolerating deer and elk in their fields during the winter, and often year round.

In areas that I'm familiar with, quite a few deer winter on private ground, competing with livestock. The landowner voucher system a party meant to compensate landowners. If there were no compensation, landowners could demand that deer and elk be removed from their lands in the winter. That could hurt many herd units.

If private landowners are going to feed our deer and elk during winter months, they should be compensated. If they want to sell their vouchers, so be it---it's their voucher to do with it what they want.

I'm not sure exactly what percentage of tags landowners deserve. IMO, it probably depends on what percentage of each particular herd unit is private.

I personally don't think that it is fair for sportsmen to expect private landowners to support our deer and elk every winter without some sort of compensation. In many areas, private land is critical winter range.

That's my 2 cents. I say Colorado should keep the landowner voucher system, but not increase the percentage.

Brian Latturner
MonsterMuleys.com

 

[Devlin]

This whole thing is only about money.Give the land owners x amount of dollars per voucher then put the tags back in the public draw to recoupe some of the money.The land owners can charge a access fee if they wish to make a few more bucks...Devlin

 

[walltenthunter]

Landowner compensation for deer and elk eating crops is the game damage program, not the intent of the landowner preference program. Colorado already has the most liberal game damage program in the nation, and as I recall the most recent $ was $1.8 million paid out to landowners for game damage (mostly eating crops). Many other states pay no compensation to landowners for crop damage or eating bailed hay. Therefore folks, set aside the preference issue if the issue is to compensate landowners for deer and elk losses for crops.

 

[Grasshopper]

Any one who buys real estate, gets a "bundle of rights". Those rights do not include compensation in any form for supporting wildlife. Landowners seem to think they should be "entitled" to compensation when the fact of the matter is there is no entitlement.

I don't get compensated for the birds who eat the berries and apples from the trees in my yards, nor the mice who seem to invade my garage when it gets cold out and eat the dog food left out there. I am not entitled to it.

If landowners want compensation from the state for wildlife, it to come solely from hunting access programs like Montana's block management.

I have no beef whatsoever with commmercialization of wildlife. America is founded on the basis of capitalism, and commercialization.

What we should all be ashamed of is "PRIVITIZATION". Transerable landowner tags are 100% PRIVITIZATION of a public resource.

 

[txhunter58]

In my area of Texas, where we have a whitetail behind every bush, the state does not compensate landowners for any animal damage. If you wish to keep wildlife away, you are free to build a deer proof fence.

In Colorado as in Texas, landowners generally don't want to build deer/elk proof fences, because they already make money on leasing their land for hunting.

If the state needs to compensate for wildlife being on their land, then let the state pay them on a straight money deal. Don't give them public land hunt tags to sell. Just my 0.2 cents.

txhunter58

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

 

[Founder]

A couple years ago, a Paunsaugunt landowner felt that he was being shafted. He was supporting big deer on his land. Everyone else got to hunt them, he didn't. Other landowners were being compensated through the CWMU program for tags that were being filled by deer he was feeding.
That landowner began killing the deer.

If landowners begin feeling like they're not getting a fair shake, they begin asking the DWR to remove animals from their private land. It'll only hurt sportsmen in the long run. Landowners and sportmen need to remain friends.

The system may need to be adjusted, but I don't think we can shaft the landowners who support the deer and elk herds throughout the winter.

Brian Latturner
MonsterMuleys.com

 

[Packout]

Colorado's "Voucher" system problem is 3 fold:

1-Many ranchers do not let the hunter use the ranch for which the tag was obtained. 15% seems fair as a general rule, but the tag MUST be used on the ranch which obtained the voucher and should not be valid unit wide.

2-The tag is transferrable more than once. This allows tag traders to profit when they are not providing anything to the area's wildlife. Colorado could solve this problem by making the tags transferrable only ONCE.

3-Landowners with 160 acres can apply for tags. This acreage is too small. The minimum acreage should be somewhere around 640 (one section) acres.

I do believe that landowners should have a chance at obtaining tags to hunt their own land. We have a ranch in Utah and we don't recieve any preference in obtaining antlered animal tags. Yet we house over 175 elk and 150 deer throughout the year. I would like to see Utah have a small percentage of tags set aside for landowners of 640 acres or more. Now I guess that is a different can of worms.

 

[Gator]

LAST EDITED ON Jun-05-05 AT 10:07AM (MST)[p]I think the problem isn't with the tags given out to ranch and farm owners it the re-sale of those tags to hunters who can't hunt the land these tags are for (ranch Lands) instead they are sold to hunter who is then required to hunt the same public land you are hunting and if that is the case why not just put these tags back into the draw and pay the rancher his crop damage money.What happens in Utah you can get a ton of doe and cow tags but NO BUCK OR BULL tags for the landowner, if Colorado did the same you would see a huge drop in outfitter's buying those tags, But I guess it only the Bulls and Bucks eating the crops.

 

[Grasshopper]

While I will agree with you Brian that a partnership with landowners is important, giving away transferable carcass tags owned by all members of public, is not the answer.

On the other hand, Montana does have an example of the perfect partnership between hunters, managers and landowners with block management.

If I were to go back to real estate law again....Wildlife has been using these lands before man ever set foot on it, and implemented an "ownership" system. By defined national real estate law, one could argue wildlife has an "easement" or right of access to the lands. Given that, Landowners can't ask to have wildlife removed, by law it would be a violation of their rights. As well, when landowners bought the land, they knew wildlife was accessing it.

Again, privitization of wildlife is where this is headed. Is that ever acceptable?

 

[Bura Nut]

Grasshopper: NO is the only acceptable answer to the question of privatization of wildlife. I dont see an easy answer to this issue that seems to be going the wrong way in CO and AZ will be right on its tail. 2006 will see Arizona introducing Ranching for Wildlife and somehow someway Utah, Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico and some other western states need to quickly formulate a conceptual plan that is based on a Partnership between landowners, Sportsmen and keep the politicians out of the alliance. If not, revenues become the goal of all................. Thanks, Allen Taylor......

 

[Prism]

We are indeed on a slippery slope, and all of the issues are too complex and diverse for my simple mind.

Where I live in Utah is growing like crazy, especially the winter ranges. There are two CWMUs in the valley.

The landowners and outfitters make more money off of the wildlife than they do running livestock. The money raised from "commercializing" the wildlife has given the landowners another reason not to sell to developers. Mind you this property is worth a pretty penny.

It will eventually be developed, but I think the CWMU program has put it off for a few more years, at least until the landowner dies and children sell it off.

I hope to be the recipient of a Colorado landowner tag this year. That being said I do not think landowners should get more than 15% of the tags. I do think that landowners that legitimately have property that is used by the publics wildlife should be rewarded in some way.

The western way of life is under attack, and will never be the same. Ranches are being bought to be developed, for the hunting-or both.

I do think the idea that buying a landowner tag would void points has merit, but this wouldn't affect the wealthy as they could buy a landowner tag every year anyway.

As far as only allowing the tag to be sold once, the DWR would need to give the public a list of landowners. I have no problem with paying someone besides the landowner money if they did the leg work to locate and market the tags (as long as their markup in price is reasonable).

Lately I've been really disgusted with Utah?s conservation tag program, and I still am. However, it does show that hunters are willing to spend big money for their passion. This isn't going unnoticed by fish and game agencies at the state or federal levels. Imagine if it was the other way around-hunters weren't willing to spend money. Agencies would be looking more and more to the nonconsumptive users to fund their agencies, and hunters would be on the losing end more and more.

Like I said it's too complex for my simple mind-enjoy it while we can and try to make a difference where you can.

The sad part is the (ever true) saying ?So goes the west, so goes the mule deer.?

 

[walltenthunter]

Thanks you all for your input, and I hope we get more. I would expand what Prism said that "So goes the hunting license, and so goes hunting as we know it in America."

Do we want the European model where only the wealthy, privileged, or well connected would be able to hunt?.

As for rewarding the landowner for the public hunting that land, Colorado presently only requires landowners getting vouchers afford 'reasonable' access to public hunters. Is 'reasonable' public access equate to only the rancher's wife, or his best friends, or relatives? Does a voucher buyer even have entitlement to hunt the very ranch the voucher was issued from? You tell me, yet the interpretation is in the eyes of the landowner. That kind of total discretion to the landowner to me is an unlevel playing field for ordinary hunter access.

Such is but some of why I contend the ordinary hunter can nill afford any higher preference ('set aside') of limited Colorado licenses than the 15%landowners already have.

 

[chambero]

I think they knew those deer and elk where there when they acquired the land, even if it was 100 years ago. As TXHunter58 said, we sure have learned to tolerate them in Texas on our ranches. Also - their cattle or sheep or whatever ain't living off that grass during the winter. They are eating hay or cubes or whatever. I doubt its that hard for cows to keep elk chased out of their hay racks. Our cows don't seem to have a problem keeping the deer chased off.

I would be really upset if I owned land and couldn't hunt my own ranch or nearby. I have no problem with the landowners being given a reasonable number of nontransferrable tags for their family members or even friends. If they want them transferable (sellable) then make them good for private land only.

 

[cabinfever]

I think LO tags are a great way to compensate land owners, however, the one thing the CDOW needs to realize is the majority of the guys that buy these tags are die hard hunters. They will hunt longer and harder and will likely harvest an older age class of buck. My concern is if they issue more than the current 15% our older age class of bucks will be in trouble. All said and done, land owners should be FAIRLY compensated for feeding our public resource.

Mike

 

[Founder]

I do agree that the word "Reasonable" be removed from the "offer reasonable access to private land". Landowners who participate in the program need to offer complete access to all land that they are using to obtain the vouchers.

I feel that the CDOW also needs to closely monitor what type of land is being used to obtain the permits---does it support a reasonable amount of wildlife. I'm sure there's plenty of land that is eligible for landowner vouchers that does not support much for wildlife.
Also, I'm sure there are many landowners who receive vouchers that do not allow access to or through their land to the general public. That needs to be one of the first changes. Enforcing it will be the trick.

Brian Latturner
MonsterMuleys.com

 

[cabinfever]

Founder

Well put. Couldn't agree with you more. We are extending a benifit to the landowners and they need to reciprocate it to the public.

Mike

 

[Gator]

It seem so easy to fix, BUT we all know you can't make everyone happy so just try and make the most of us happy and fix the problem the best way you can. Thanks Walltenthunter

 

[BUCKSPY]

Walltenthunter-Great information and education for those uniformed on the landowner voucher program. You have obviously done your research. I know one of the guys sitting on the license allocation commitee meetings as a sportsman's rep and will forward this link to him so he can get this input.

 

[COHunter]

I hear that CO is going back to the days when only Landowners could Vote too. We give up way too much in this state. Deer & Elk are as natural as Lodgepole Pinetree's in this state so why should landowners be compensated. Its not like they are some exotic animal from Asia. A woodpecker has damaged my house this Spring, should I get the DOW to pay me for it ????

I just love how they (DOW) stack the deck with "9" money interest people vs. "6" sportsmen on the LAG. What a frickin' joke.

 

[walltenthunter]

Buckspy: Now you know two on the Colorado Landowner Allocation Committee. I serve representing NE Colorado as a Sportsman.
All hunters opinions to me have immense value, as every hunter is important to the future of hunting. None of us are any more important than the next hunter, and we all share common ground on what impacts our hunting heritage. Really you have to champion the Colorado Division of Wildlife in its open sharing of information, plus allowing a public forum like the LAG to allow stakeholders to sit across the table and respectfully discuss positions and talking points important to them. I told the committee day one there is great potential but no guarantees to the right folks sitting at the same table for common discussion. For sure our basic needs are different, yet involved is trying to understand others opinions. Rest assured there are to me no advantages to anyone stakeholder group (landowners, outfitters, sportsmen, and community/economic interests)in the LAG committee. All there are passionate about what they believe in. Personally I remain open minded to what is presented, yet grounded by a hunting heritage gleaned in 40 years of hunting plus growing up in a hunting family. Hopefully the information I shared informs you hunters better on landowner preference. I will look forward to other posts on these landowner preference matters.

We all are in this together fellow hunters.

Kent Ingram (Walltenthunter)
If anyone wants to call me direct regarding the LAG my evening phone # is 303-933-9987. Better call me before mid-October though, as after that I'll be hunting white faced muleys and dark necked mature bulls in remote Colorado places.

 

[BUCKSPY]

Kent-Thank you so much for volunteering your time to represent the sportsmen and women of Colorado. I know myself and others really appreciate it.

A few years ago I attended quite a few of the "Stakeholders Commitee" meetings around the state, and to tell you the truth feel very "jaded" in regards to the commitee findings being taken seriously by DOW staff and the Wildlife Commision.

With the two latest additions to the Wildlife Commision being and outfitter and a western slope rancher, sportsmen representives being in the mathematical minority in your LAG commitee, its not to difficult to understand why the perception is that "Average Joe Sportmen's" interests might not be highest on the DOW agenda.

I emailed Vic Lauer the link to this post earlier today.

 

[walltenthunter]

Vic and I think together, two peas in a pod. Both of us are we are 100% for fairness in license allocation, yet we do literally 'bleed' for the average sportsman. As for the recent Commission picks, they are first class. The first requirement would be to see the big picture, and both do. I highly value the wisdom of the Colorado Wildlife Commission, and you should too, our Supreme Court of wildlife management in Colorado. will. As an average hunter I say Colorado's wildlife these days is being managed very well. Still though, they need hunters perspectives, so please provide them that. Voice your public hunter's perspectives.

By the way, on the LAG I should mention I represent Colorado Wildlife Federation, whom I am a board member of,and chair elect. Knowing the forum is not an advertsing venue I still mention that if hunters that hunt Colorado want to invest in wildlife advocacy, a good investment would be to join Colorado Wildlife Federation for a whopping fee of $35 a year. Along the way in our quarterly newsletters are hunting tips from time to time from yours truely. My fellow hunters I hunt with would not pay a dime for such, yet so goes respect in hunting camps. No one gets any respect... at least aside from a jokes played on another, and laughs over bucks and bulls that outsmart us with regularity.

 

[cowhitey]

Hello All,

I'm a long time lurker and just registered to add to this thread.

Walltenthunter, thanks for your service. I would like to post the following body of a letter I sent to the commission regarding this topic. Pasted below is the letter. I have blocked out the outfitters name and unit number so as to not create a conflict on the world wide web. The original letter doesn't have the edits. This is an actual situation and is a good example of the legal abuse of the system by some.

________________________________________________________________
April 5, 2005


To whom it may concern,

It has been brought to my attention that the landowner tag voucher system is under review. I would like to submit the following for further review and consideration.



I have hunted deer in unit XXX for years. You used to be able to draw every year and before that it was over the counter. I have many friends who own land in this unit and have always had access to hunt. In 2000 there wasn?t a ranch that wouldn't allow reasonable access for people to hunt. That same year OUTFITTER X moved in and leased 3 large tracts of good deer habitat. In 2001 OUTFITTER X?s landowners put in for approximately 17 of the 19 priority preference applications. Unfortunately my landowner friends we were not aware of the priority program until after the deadline to register their property in 2001. In 2002 I had 5 landowner friends that applied for the priority preference applications. These are landowners who hunt or have family that hunts and have approximately 30,000 acres together.

My point is the following. There are only 3 landowner rifle tags given in Unit XXX. Due to the set up of the current landowner tag system OUTFITTER X landowners will draw EVERY landowner tag until 2009. OUTFITTER X has offered one of my landowners $500.00 each for bow or rifle landowner tags. OUTFITTER X currently sells those rifle tags to their clients for $1,000 each. For every limited landowner tag he gets he can outfit another client for a $5,000 deer hunt. So for every landowner tag drawn OUTFITTER X currently can make $4,500.

This is not fair to the current landowners who cannot hunt their own land with a landowners tag. Is it fair for the landowner?s son to not be able to hunt his own land for 6 years while an outfitter is making $4,500 on every tag? Isn?t that what the program was set up for? The landowners are being denied the right to hunt their own property while a company like OUTFITTER X makes a HUGE profit. With the profit more land becomes leased and off limits to locals and our youth.

If the landowner system was set up to benefit a few greedy landowners and the outfitters then you are on right on target. If the program is designed to benefit some landowners with the ability to make some money off their land and provide access, then it does need some changes.

I support increasing the percent of landowner tags as long as access to hunt is granted with the transfer of the tag. This would cut down on a lot of the abuse by landowners. Private landowner tags should not be allowed on public property.

The above account is a true first hand story of an example of how the current landowner priority tag program is abused by outfitters and some landowners. The program encourages the exploitation of our wildlife to the wealthy. When you can buy Colorado Big Game tags on eBay from some guy in Dallas you have a problem. Look how the system has ruined Kansas.

_______________________________________________________________

Walltenthunter, if you post your email I can send you an original copy without the edits.

Thanks,

COwhitey

 

[walltenthunter]

Cowhitey: Try my work e-mail @ [email protected]. I feel for you. The inequities in present landowner preference are many, yet I have to tell you I see no proper arguments for a higher preference, unless we were to limit those vouchers to private lands only. I could see that, yet the market value in of vouchers for many units would drop like a sack of potatoes.
Examples of inequity are that in 2004 532 landowner parcels received 0 vouchers, and another 345 landowner parcels received 4,334 vouchers (avg. of 12), and one rancher won the trifecta getting 56. Your unit sounds like it has but few vouchers. Send me your letter. I will read it and factor it into my thinking.