I posted this in another thread but thought it deserved some thought standing on its own. Much of the voucher talk concerns access logistics and regulation but this poses some hard questions I think we must answer at some point.
In post 52 of the "Colorado Land Owner Rip Off" Brian copied some language from the state statute that somewhat defines the original intents of the landowner voucher program.
I certainly empathise with non-residents who would like to take advantage of the opportunity to hunt some places in Colorado on a more regular basis. Its limited and its coveted and increasingly desirable. I understand that those who have purchased, traded for, or garnered vouchers through various means would like to see the system stay as is.
We have seen what has happened in just 3 years of this increased exploitation of this system and have also seen what happens when many of the working class hunters who have bought vouchers are now being priced out because of the free market economics that drive the prices up.
Aside from one's selfish interests in getting an opportunity to hunt because of the voucher purchase, are we as hunters really better off because of them? Is the idea of your wildife on your public land being offered up for sale to the highest bidder really what our hunting heritage is about? When you finally draw a tag are you comfortable with the idea that the guy on the other mountain "bought" his opportunity to compete with you indirectly when you spent 5-10 years applying in the draw?
I have trouble thinking any of us really and honestly believe that a "yes" answer is the right one to any of those questions.
There are plenty of other instances in life where wealth and money have their perks but having the priviledge to hunt on public land should not ever be a priviledge to bought, sold and bartered. It really and truely goes against the very foundation of America's hunting heritage.
In post 52 of the "Colorado Land Owner Rip Off" Brian copied some language from the state statute that somewhat defines the original intents of the landowner voucher program.
I certainly empathise with non-residents who would like to take advantage of the opportunity to hunt some places in Colorado on a more regular basis. Its limited and its coveted and increasingly desirable. I understand that those who have purchased, traded for, or garnered vouchers through various means would like to see the system stay as is.
We have seen what has happened in just 3 years of this increased exploitation of this system and have also seen what happens when many of the working class hunters who have bought vouchers are now being priced out because of the free market economics that drive the prices up.
Aside from one's selfish interests in getting an opportunity to hunt because of the voucher purchase, are we as hunters really better off because of them? Is the idea of your wildife on your public land being offered up for sale to the highest bidder really what our hunting heritage is about? When you finally draw a tag are you comfortable with the idea that the guy on the other mountain "bought" his opportunity to compete with you indirectly when you spent 5-10 years applying in the draw?
I have trouble thinking any of us really and honestly believe that a "yes" answer is the right one to any of those questions.
There are plenty of other instances in life where wealth and money have their perks but having the priviledge to hunt on public land should not ever be a priviledge to bought, sold and bartered. It really and truely goes against the very foundation of America's hunting heritage.