Latest Tag Grab, COLORADO

tailchasers · May 11, 2012

Seems the Landowner Voucher Program Review Committee is seeking to take another 5% of all the tags issues here in Colorado. Appartently the 15% they receive isn't enough or greed is getting the best of them and they feel they need another 5%. Pretty good tag grab if I must say. This grab comes off the top of all tags so residents and nonresidents get affected making all units that much more difficult to draw.

Here's the link outlining their proposal:

http://wildlife.state.co.us/SiteCol...oucherReviewCommittee/LVRCRecommendations.pdf

This proposal still needs to go through the Park and Wildlife Commissioners so you have a little time yet before this is a done deal. I encourage you to send your comments to the commissioners telling them exactly how you feel. I know I did. Here are all the email addresses for the Park and Wildlife Commissioners;

[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]

Give um heck!!!

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

BeanMan · May 11, 2012

Chaser,

You know I'm going to write everyone I can think of. The problem is that most Colorado Sportsman will read this and move on. This is one of the most important issue's that a person who hunts Colorado and is not wealthy should comment on.

tailchasers · May 11, 2012

LAST EDITED ON May-11-12 AT 09:33PM (MST)[p]Darn right beanman! If we don't the future worsen for every hunter wanting to hunt here. I would encourage nonresidents to send comments in too since their tag numbers WILL be cut and tag prices will raise.

I addition to the Parks and Wildlife commission I also sent a very forward letter the the Landowner Vouch Board too. I will include our legislatures too but not sure who is on the Park and Wildlife committee. Have to do some research here.

All it takes is a short note to one or all of these posted email addresses voicing your concerns or displeasure of the proposed rule by the LO Voucher Committee regarding the increase tag allocation.

The more i read the proposal and look into the entire ordeal the more perturbed I get with those individuals driving this assinine tag grab. Giving me a real sour taste in my mouth.

Here's a link with the proposed changes, look about 3/4 the way down the page under "Recommendations";
http://wildlife.state.co.us/Hunting...ee/Pages/LandownerVoucherReviewCommittee.aspx

Trying to copy and paste the link from my phones isnt proving vey fruitful. LOL

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

HillbillyNnevada · May 11, 2012

It is too bad that this commercialization of wildlife snowball is already rolling at full tilt. It is going to be difficult to stop this crap nowdays. The origins of this would make a great research paper for some student in high school or college. Atleast then, we could put our finger on who to blame.

Blanding_Boy · May 11, 2012

LAST EDITED ON May-11-12 AT 10:38PM (MST)[p]I thought this was interesting.

http://wildlife.state.co.us/LandWater/PrivateLandProgram/Pages/PrivateLandPrograms.aspx

As many of you know I'm sort of a proponent of private lands and land ownership. I think the right to own property is a right we have and what we decided to do with that property is our business as long as its within our current rule/laws.

The delima here (and most western states) is having a public resource such as wildlife on your private land. In the case of Colorado, the private lands providing 95% of critical winter range in the state for mule deer and 89% of the total habitat for antelope (if I read it correctly). That's a pretty significant portion I think.

What is the solution to the private lands public wildlife controversy? A landowner does occur real cost (believe it or not) for feeding, providing habitat for and housing a public resource? These are private lands. Would you all rather they sell it to developers those who would convert it to shopping malls, ski resorts, or permanently alter/change the habitat so they can achieve their American dream? Should these landowners be compensated at all or as some would say, this is just the cost of owning private lands? I'm just curious, is there a solution you guys have thought of that provides something for providing a resource we all use? Will there ever be or is this simply a case of the haves vs. have nots? The capitalistic vs. the socialistic?

I just find it amazing that instead of coming up with solutions of something concrete that is perhaps a different alternative we are quick to bash a landowner (or who ever is asking for a 5% increase) for wanting some sort of compensation from a public resource using their property. I have seen lots of acres in my day be sold for 40 acre cabin lots, ski resorts, plowed up and or burned for some agriculture purpose or 'bio-fuel purpose and other uses which I promise all generate way more money than a few deer tags. What would you that hunt and enjoy the outdoors rather have? I find it amazing that when a guy ask for a transferable landowner tag or 2 everyone cries foul. When a guy ask for a bull tag everyone spits on him but yet he feeds them (a real cost) for months on end no one even cares or acknowledges that person.

I just don't get it..... 15% for providing 95% of the critical winter range doesn't sound like much of a sacrifice to me but I guess I'm just one who believes in free enterprise, the American dream and the right to own property.

Just another point of view I guess. Oh and BTW, I don't consider myself wealthy, I work 2 jobs just so I can hunt. I would never buy a 3k or more deer tag, I couldn't afford it but 500 to 1k, I'm pretty sure if i stopped eating out 2 twice a week for lunch, saved my soda monies i could sneak in a Colorado landowner tag her and there at least every other year.

Todd Black

Visit our YouTube page
http://www.youtube.com/user/bulls4bto?feature=mhum

SoleSearcher36 · May 11, 2012

I intend to take some time out of my weekend to send some emails to those on the list. Thanks for posting this.

4100fps · May 11, 2012

Sounds more like extortion than compensation. It would be interesting to see a link for the percentage figures you people are claiming.

Once you go down the road to privatization, you will forever lose ground. Compensation, will never be enough.

I wanted to take a scalp,but the kill was not mine.

OttercreekKid · May 12, 2012

4100, What part of Blanding boy's post did you not understand? If this private land was not available for the winter range how many would we loose every year? It seems like the animals know exactly where the boundries are. Some how the land owner needs to be compensated, and I would hate to see our tag fee's go through the roof.

tailchasers · May 12, 2012

> If this private land
>was not available for the
>winter range how many
>would we loose every year?
> It seems like the
>animals know exactly where the
>boundries are. Some how
>the land owner needs to
>be compensated, and I would
>hate to see our tag
>fee's go through the roof.
>

Absolutly none of these numbers are correct and is simply an estimate and based upon a state wide average. Each unit is unique as to the wintering habits of each species and in this case deer. I happen to live in the NW corner of the state and the vast majority winter on public lands and as a matter of fact the majority of animals live on public lands throughout the year. Taking an added 5% from all the tags issued is not logical and is down right BS. Now if you wanna talk eastern slope then you got an entire different story but once you get to the western slope things change quite a bit. I'll give you one unit in specific:
Unit 21
381 tags issued last year:
15% went to LO's = 57 tags = average $5,000/LO tag = $285,000

New proposal will have 5% increase taken from the same total quota of 381 tags:
20% to LO's = 87 tags = average $5,000/LO tag = $435,000
Does this seem right or is there maybe some special interest involved here with some LO's or outfitters seeking to make a few dollars? This is just one unit. Pick another unit and its easy to figure out what this is all about and that being M O N E Y. . .
Whats the going rate for an eastern plains buck tag around Limon?
How about Eagle county? Or Gunnison? How about around Craig or Meeker?

If the animals are having such a dramatic affect upon their property seasonally there are other measures which already exist in the DOW's book for them to be deal with it. Additionally there is already a separate draw set up for Private Land owners and private land only hunts within the state. So this is once again about one thing and one thing one $$$$$$$$$$$...

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

leonard · May 12, 2012

I sent a email to the committee also, including some thoughts of my own and others. If there was about 1,500 sportsmen contacting the commissioners/committee members this could be stopped. I'm all for landowners getting tags but anymore than 10 percent is proportional. Secondly, acquiring a voucher should lose their points for that species. Why not limit it to antlerless only animals to further reduce the population?

sticksender · May 12, 2012

There are already Private-Land-Only tags, and game damage tags available to Landowners and their hunters, in units with an abundance of private land. These tags are in ADDITION to this proposed boost in Landowner tags being removed from the GENERAL PUBLIC DRAW allocation.

Under the proposed Landowner tag boost plan, the increase in tags given to Landowners will be REGARDLESS OF THE PROPORTION OF PRIVATE LAND in a hunting unit. So in a hunting unit where the actual game habitat for that species is only a tiny portion of private land and mostly public land....the private land holders will still get 20% of the general allocation of big game tags allocated to that full unit.

TheKnack · May 13, 2012

LAST EDITED ON May-13-12 AT 02:14PM (MST)[p]The real sad part is we can write all we want and they just throw it away or hit the delete button. I have never been given a reply from any of them regarding this issue.
Sadly, untill someone can confront the issue in a courtroom we will be ignored regardless of how much we write or show up at meetings.
Possibly getting a large petition signed and funds raised to afford it would finally put a brake on this.
No problem with landowners getting tags for there (own) land...Selling landowner tags and using them on public land to me should be illegal. How would they feel if I had a tag for a certain unit they are in and I was allowed to shoot an animal on there property since it's in that Unit?

My 2-cents.
Jerry