Landowner voucher bill article

[ColoradoOak]

Here is a good article about the proposed changes to the landowner preference (voucher) program. The bill (SB13-188) has passed out of the Senate and is on its way to the House. Write your representatives and tell them to kill this misguided bill.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-petersen/the-north-american-model-_1_b_2868149.html

 

[gamegetter101]

I would like to see them stop the program. Or at least make it to where the landowner cant sell the tags , Yes they should get tags for wildlife damage, cow and doe . Or be able to hunt when trhe wildlife is eating up there crops. The selling of tags has became one of the biggest second party profites makers around. It not right or in any way fare to the average hunter. Yes I have bought one before, but Rember when a land tag is issued thats one less for the public. There are just a few guys every year getting land tags . Its not right and its not right to let them hunt public ground. but each to ther own. I would just like it be used for what it was meant for. not pimping tags to the highest bidder, that my 2 cents

 

[SoleSearcher36]

Thanks for posting this Oak.......it is all to easy to lose track of what's going on in the dark corners that will effect all of us. Vouchers should ONLY be good for the land they were issued against.......period.

 

[elks96]

Thanks again. I have just emailed all representatives. We will see what they have to say. Sadly, this one is not getting much attention. I really wish some people would wake up and realize what this means. For my daughter it means she will loose the chance at over 20,000 tags in just her 4 years of high school... How is that right at all???

 

[tailchasers]

I got a response from Jerry Sonnenberg and he point blank told me this will pass without issue since the measure came out of committee without much protest. I cried BS and pointed out my letters along with the arguments about the issue but it fell on deaf ears. After researching who he is and what he does for a living I am not surprised by his response. Heck he ain't gonna vote against himself and not get a few extra free dollars.

This will pass BUT I believe if we as sportsmen can get some sort of remotely organized effort together we could push a change to the voucher program. These limitations could be done by maybe limiting the voucher to the land the voucher was issued from/for; purchase of a buck voucher in a unit typically requiring points would cause you to loose all accumilated points; vouchers issued for actual "Game Damage" would be for does/cows only; or for a myriad of other reasons which I am certain you all have plenty of other items which could be input. If the Gunnison Group concerned about the Governers tags can get some folks stirred up I believe some how an effort to restrict the voucher program can be done too on an average sportsperson level.

ColoradoOak you have been outstanding at keeping us informed with this and I appreciate your efforts and thank you for what you have brought before us. You ever get into Rangely please holler as I would enjoy buying you dinner to extend my graditude.

"Courage is being scared to death but saddling up anyway."

 

[peanut]

Sign me up in trying to get this overturned. I sent my opinions to all on the committee. I doubt any of them even saw it. Handled by a staffer and filed away in the trash.

3 or 4 years ago, the Colorado Cattlemens Assoc. pushed an attempt to get the Landowner allocation increased to 25%. That received enough resistance from the public that is was dropped. They then arranged this group to find a solution. Problem is, they had increasing the landowner allocation as their goal and these meetings that were held were all directed at working to those goals. Interesting how many of the committee members are also CCA members????

Unless there is an immediate groundswell of opposition to this bill it will pass. Then in another few years, we will see the landowners back, probably using this consensus BS since it worked so well this time, to get the landowner allocation increased again.
Please write to Colorado representatives and try to get this killed in the house.

 

[sageman]

>Thanks for posting this Oak.......it is
>all to easy to lose
>track of what's going on
>in the dark corners that
>will effect all of us.
> Vouchers should ONLY be
>good for the land they
>were issued against.......period.


DITO!

 

[Waygoner]

LAST EDITED ON Mar-27-13 AT 09:50AM (MST)[p]Peanut - I couldn't agree more. This has been a done deal since day one, not a single vote against it. In a few years they'll come back asking for more. I have a friend who owns 160 acres in GMU 67. He gets several tags every year and can make close to $5k selling them - easy money! He doesn't suffer any crop damage and marginally provides some winter habitat. The voucher system is a scam and the Ag committee will always vote to put more $$ in the landowners pocket.

>Sign me up in trying to
>get this overturned. I sent
>my opinions to all on
>the committee. I doubt any
>of them even saw it.
>Handled by a staffer and
>filed away in the trash.
>
>
>3 or 4 years ago, the
>Colorado Cattlemens Assoc. pushed an
>attempt to get the Landowner
>allocation increased to 25%. That
>received enough resistance from the
>public that is was dropped.
>They then arranged this group
>to find a solution. Problem
>is, they had increasing the
>landowner allocation as their goal
>and these meetings that were
>held were all directed at
>working to those goals. Interesting
>how many of the committee
>members are also CCA members????
>
>
>Unless there is an immediate groundswell
>of opposition to this bill
>it will pass. Then in
>another few years, we will
>see the landowners back, probably
>using this consensus BS
>since it worked so well
>this time, to get the
>landowner allocation increased again.
>Please write to Colorado representatives and
>try to get this killed
>in the house.