T
TCR1
Guest
The DOW is going to be hosting meetings starting this Friday concerning the appropration of tags to ranchers. Tuesday Nov. 9 from 7-9 is the meeting in Denver.
B
Bazy
Guest
I posted the same notice on the mule deer and elk forums. We need to let DOW know are feelings about this. My gut feel is that the landowners are just trying to get DOW's approval before they approach the legislature. I've got a bad feeling about this one.
BeanMan
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 6,923
I just Talked with an information officer in the Grand Junction Office. According to him The Wildlife Commission was approached by a group of landowners described as "wealthy and influential". They feel they need more tags to compensate them for the large numbers of animals that winter on their land. And they want them to be antlered tags. It doesn't take too much brainpower to see that the real issue is money not compensation. According to the DOW guy I talked to this proposal is not coming from DOW and isn't sanctioned by them. The landowners have threatened to take this issue directly to the legislature thus bypassing the DOW and Wildlife Commision and more importantly the Public. Joe Hunter gets left out in the cold.
I'm going to contact Tom Burke, a local guy who is on the Wildlife Commision and let him know my feelings on this subject.
Bazy, you are correct in having a bad feeling about this.
BeanMan
I'm going to contact Tom Burke, a local guy who is on the Wildlife Commision and let him know my feelings on this subject.
Bazy, you are correct in having a bad feeling about this.
BeanMan
R
ridgetop
Guest
This whole deal looks pretty crooked to me. It seems like some of the landowners see an opportunity for a power/money grab, and will try to steamroll anyone in their way. The whole "landowner" tag, but you can hunt public land on it as well thing is what is incredibly unbelievable to me. I'm not sure Im clear on all the details, but it doesent bode well for the future of hunting in Colorado. Hopefully a flood of regular hunters and other "influential" individuals will put their foot down and take a stand on this one.
Landowners will get what they want, because they and Outfitters & motel owners own the Division.
I attended the public meetings for the 5 year BGSS and the D.O.W. didn't want to hear what the people in attendence had to say, so why would they care about this ? To them they see $$$$ because most of these Vouchers will be sold to Nonresidents who still have to buy a $495 Elk tag & $295 Deer tag.
Their probably loving this Landowner idea. They're thinking...."Now were gonna increase the license fee's on Resident Hunters and take away more of their Tags".
I attended the public meetings for the 5 year BGSS and the D.O.W. didn't want to hear what the people in attendence had to say, so why would they care about this ? To them they see $$$$ because most of these Vouchers will be sold to Nonresidents who still have to buy a $495 Elk tag & $295 Deer tag.
Their probably loving this Landowner idea. They're thinking...."Now were gonna increase the license fee's on Resident Hunters and take away more of their Tags".
Waygoner
Active Member
- Messages
- 459
LAST EDITED ON Nov-02-04 AT 09:02AM (MST)[p]I emailed a bunch of officials at the DOW, including Russell George. Here is the letter I sent, followed by his response.
"I recently read an article in the Denver Post by Charlie Meyers about a potential increase in the number of big game tags issued to landowners. As an avid outdoorsman I'm writing to express why I believe this is a bad thing for the people of Colorado.
Apparently this discussion has been taking place without the input of the general public. It has not been mentioned in the various proposals for the 5 year season structure. I've attended local meetings regarding the season structure and have voiced my opinion, but was not aware of the initiative to increase the percentage of tags given to landowners until I read the article in the Post. A change of this magnitude warrants the input of the general public and should not be slipped in the back door.
Landowners can sell these tags to the highest bidder, providing a tremendous source of revenue. Combined with compensation for crop damage, farmers and ranchers are being adequately compensated with the current license allocation. The landowner tag increase is not justified. If this increase is approved, it will mean greatly reduced opportunities for resident hunters because the majority of these expensive tags are sold to
non-residents. The proposed percentage of limited big game licenses guaranteed to landowners in the State of Colorado is 35%. The percentage of limited big game licenses guaranteed to non-residents in the Colorado license drawing is 40%. Should roughly 75% of limited licenses go to non-residents? I hardly think this is fair. If additional GMUs are made limited this will further reduce opportunities for resident hunters.
It's alarming to see how quickly hunting is becoming a sport reserved for the wealthy. The wildlife in this State belong to the people of Colorado. The animals don't owe anyone a living. We need to stop letting economics dictate how we determine our licensing and season structures. Please keep the current landowner tag allotment at it's current level so that Colorado residents have access to the hunting opportunities they deserve."
Here is George's response:
"Thank you for your letter. The issue is in its early stages brought to the DOW by landowners. It will be discussed in public meetings and at the Wildlife Commission over the next few weeks. No action has been taken. In any event a change would require a bill before the legislature."
If the DOW gives their stamp of approval to the increase, it's a slam dunk. The bill will fly through the legislature without any objection.
"I recently read an article in the Denver Post by Charlie Meyers about a potential increase in the number of big game tags issued to landowners. As an avid outdoorsman I'm writing to express why I believe this is a bad thing for the people of Colorado.
Apparently this discussion has been taking place without the input of the general public. It has not been mentioned in the various proposals for the 5 year season structure. I've attended local meetings regarding the season structure and have voiced my opinion, but was not aware of the initiative to increase the percentage of tags given to landowners until I read the article in the Post. A change of this magnitude warrants the input of the general public and should not be slipped in the back door.
Landowners can sell these tags to the highest bidder, providing a tremendous source of revenue. Combined with compensation for crop damage, farmers and ranchers are being adequately compensated with the current license allocation. The landowner tag increase is not justified. If this increase is approved, it will mean greatly reduced opportunities for resident hunters because the majority of these expensive tags are sold to
non-residents. The proposed percentage of limited big game licenses guaranteed to landowners in the State of Colorado is 35%. The percentage of limited big game licenses guaranteed to non-residents in the Colorado license drawing is 40%. Should roughly 75% of limited licenses go to non-residents? I hardly think this is fair. If additional GMUs are made limited this will further reduce opportunities for resident hunters.
It's alarming to see how quickly hunting is becoming a sport reserved for the wealthy. The wildlife in this State belong to the people of Colorado. The animals don't owe anyone a living. We need to stop letting economics dictate how we determine our licensing and season structures. Please keep the current landowner tag allotment at it's current level so that Colorado residents have access to the hunting opportunities they deserve."
Here is George's response:
"Thank you for your letter. The issue is in its early stages brought to the DOW by landowners. It will be discussed in public meetings and at the Wildlife Commission over the next few weeks. No action has been taken. In any event a change would require a bill before the legislature."
If the DOW gives their stamp of approval to the increase, it's a slam dunk. The bill will fly through the legislature without any objection.
T
TCR1
Guest
I'm glad to see he took the time to write a breif paragraph that told us very little. I'm looking forward to the meeting next tuesday.
R
ridgetop
Guest
That little blurb he sent you didnt seem to indicate he was opposed to the idea... Hope there is a big stink raised at the meeting. Wish I could be there.
txhunter58
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 8,593
LAST EDITED ON Nov-02-04 AT 01:16PM (MST)[p]There may be some nonresidents that would be happy to see this, but don't count me as one of them. I think it is a bad idea for everyone except the landowners and the "hunting rich". By the time I pay for my tags and travel expenses, I certainly can't afford any extra, and the vast majority of nonresidents would not be able to afford it either. Wish I could be at the meeting, but I have sent off some emails too expressing my displeasure.
txhunter58
venor, ergo sum (I hunt, therefore I am)
txhunter58
venor, ergo sum (I hunt, therefore I am)
elkhunter4
Active Member
- Messages
- 116
You know I am not sure I totally disagree with the idea of giving landowners a few more tags. My good friend's family owns a ranch of 3500 acres in Colorado and during the last 10 years they have only drawn 4 tags. I didn't realize that land owners aren't given tags like they are in Utah or other states, they have to draw for them. This family dont sell their tags, there are enough hunters in the family. There are hundreds of elk and deer and antelope on their ranch but they cannot hunt them because they are unable to draw. If it weren't for terrible trespassing they would allow other hunters in. Maybe if the DWR gave a few more tags it will push some of the animals back on public land.
Why should owning land entitle somebody to a Tag for something the people of the state owns ? They should be thankful that when they do draw a tag they have a place to hunt thats not overrun with hunters like most of the public area's.
Landowners should have the same draw odds as anyone else IMO, because they are just owners of the land, not the wildlife on it.
Landowners should have the same draw odds as anyone else IMO, because they are just owners of the land, not the wildlife on it.
R
rocketman
Guest
I will be attending the DOW meeting in Grand
Junction Wed. evening. I agree with everyone in the
above messages except for the one who defends
land owner tags. 3500 acres and hard to get a tag?
Just what unit are they in ? Hard to believe.
I have attended almost all the comm meetings and local meetings in GJ< Gunnison,Montrose, and Durango the pasyear and not one word was said about this. I would estimate that 90%
of land owner tags are sold and that 90%
of those go to non res. Many of those tags go
to outfitters who can bid alot for them because
they package it into a guided hunt. Im my
unit 76 I am friends with several outfitters and
they almost NEVER have res bookings. All are
non res.I find this proposal very upsetting
for us Colo sportsmen. Hope to see you in GJ
Roy in Montrose
Junction Wed. evening. I agree with everyone in the
above messages except for the one who defends
land owner tags. 3500 acres and hard to get a tag?
Just what unit are they in ? Hard to believe.
I have attended almost all the comm meetings and local meetings in GJ< Gunnison,Montrose, and Durango the pasyear and not one word was said about this. I would estimate that 90%
of land owner tags are sold and that 90%
of those go to non res. Many of those tags go
to outfitters who can bid alot for them because
they package it into a guided hunt. Im my
unit 76 I am friends with several outfitters and
they almost NEVER have res bookings. All are
non res.I find this proposal very upsetting
for us Colo sportsmen. Hope to see you in GJ
Roy in Montrose
txhunter58
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 8,593
Under CURRENT law, a landowner with 3500 acres should be able to get 6 tags for each limited species EVERY year in a totally limited unit. Just has to call the DOW and ask how to get signed up. Sounds more than fair to me.
txhunter58
venor, ergo sum (I hunt, therefore I am)
txhunter58
venor, ergo sum (I hunt, therefore I am)
T
TCR1
Guest
LAST EDITED ON Nov-03-04 AT 02:31PM (MST)[p]>You know I am not sure
>I totally disagree with the
>idea of giving landowners a
>few more tags. My good
>friend's family owns a ranch
>of 3500 acres in Colorado
>and during the last 10
>years they have only drawn
>4 tags. I didn't realize
>that land owners aren't given
>tags like they are in
>Utah or other states, they
>have to draw for them.
>This family dont sell their
>tags, there are enough hunters
>in the family. There are
>hundreds of elk and deer
>and antelope on their ranch
>but they cannot hunt them
>because they are unable to
>draw. If it weren't for
>terrible trespassing they would allow
>other hunters in. Maybe if
>the DWR gave
>a few more tags it
>will push some of the
>animals back on public land.
>
to the contrary. I have heard several stories from good sources who have seen landowners and the outfitters who lease their property pushing animals from the public land to the private land. Put more tags in those properties and the outfitters will be able to hire more people to push the animals off the public property. The DOW looked the other way when this practice was brought to their attention.
>I totally disagree with the
>idea of giving landowners a
>few more tags. My good
>friend's family owns a ranch
>of 3500 acres in Colorado
>and during the last 10
>years they have only drawn
>4 tags. I didn't realize
>that land owners aren't given
>tags like they are in
>Utah or other states, they
>have to draw for them.
>This family dont sell their
>tags, there are enough hunters
>in the family. There are
>hundreds of elk and deer
>and antelope on their ranch
>but they cannot hunt them
>because they are unable to
>draw. If it weren't for
>terrible trespassing they would allow
>other hunters in. Maybe if
>the DWR gave
>a few more tags it
>will push some of the
>animals back on public land.
>
to the contrary. I have heard several stories from good sources who have seen landowners and the outfitters who lease their property pushing animals from the public land to the private land. Put more tags in those properties and the outfitters will be able to hire more people to push the animals off the public property. The DOW looked the other way when this practice was brought to their attention.
T
TxMuley
Guest
Hunters I'm not from CO but, this can affect a lot of different states. One of the things you should let the DOW know is if they make it harder for you to hunt in your own state, you will spend your money hunting in another state. This might not seem like much but when you take all the hunters in CO it comes up to a lot of money the land owners can't make up. So they will have to make the money up another way. Don't know if ths helps or not but good luck.
