Colorado Members, part 2

[Oak]

Sorry for the delay, but work has been crazy.

So the list of folks from Colorado that responded to my last thread is below. From those people on the list, I'd like to know if you support the new proposal to increase landowner voucher quotas in the western portion of the state from 15% to 20% of all limited licenses, and in the eastern portion of the state from 15% to 25%. If you are not familiar with the proposal, you may read it here:

Landowner Voucher Program Recommendations

The proposed changes I am asking you about are listed about halfway down page 7 and continue to page 8.

Please just give me a simple "yes, I support the change" or "no, I don't support the change."

Oak - No
Summitthunting -
Big Slick -
putm2sleep -
Mudranger1 -
JohnCushman -
Pagosa -
jlmatthew -
justdada -
sneakem -
Dinkshooter -
Outdooraddict -
van franke -
Khunter -
T Bone -
arffdog875 -
Zach -
newhunter20 -

[jlmatthew]

No, I don't support the change

[justdada]

No, I don't support the change

[van franke]

No I don't support it

[Mudranger1]

No change. Well explain this to me it says in the west unit wide land owner tags is reduced to 10% if I'm reading this right. What is it now? These unit wide private land owner tags is what I have he issue with I could care less how many people hunt on private property that gets the tags

[Summitthunting]

No, I don't support the change.

[Oak]

Originally Posted by Mudranger1

No change. Well explain this to me it says in the west unit wide land owner tags is reduced to 10% if I'm reading this right. What is it now? These unit wide private land owner tags is what I have he issue with I could care less how many people hunt on private property that gets the tags

They are proposing to reduce unit-wide tags to 10% from 15%, but to add a new private land only voucher that will be an additional 10%. In my opinion, they should just leave it at 15% (because I know they won't reduce it) and make them all PLO.

[Mudranger1]

Originally Posted by Oak

They are proposing to reduce unit-wide tags to 10% from 15%, but to add a new private land only voucher that will be an additional 10%. In my opinion, they should just leave it at 15% (because I know they won't reduce it) and make them all PLO.

Agreed they should all be private land only

[jlmatthew]

Originally Posted by Mudranger1

No change. Well explain this to me it says in the west unit wide land owner tags is reduced to 10% if I'm reading this right. What is it now? These unit wide private land owner tags is what I have he issue with I could care less how many people hunt on private property that gets the tags

Currently its 15% of the total quota, what they would get is 10% transferable good for public land and 10% Private Land Only. A 5% loss for tags in the drawing for the westernside (I-25 is the dividing line), we would lose another 10% of the tags on the eastern side

[Big Slick]

No, I do not support the change.

[Khunter]

No I do not support the change.

[JohnCushman]

Hell NO

[sneakem]

No.... I think the current amount is more than fair and all of those should be restricted to the private land they were issued to....

[Oak]

Oak - No
Summitthunting -
Big Slick - No
putm2sleep -
Mudranger1 - No
JohnCushman - No
Pagosa -
jlmatthew - No
justdada - No
sneakem - No
Dinkshooter -
Outdooraddict -
van franke - No
Khunter - No
T Bone -
arffdog875 -
Zach -
newhunter20 -

[ColoradoOverwatch]

no, I don't support the change
sorry i missed part one.

[Dinkshooter]

As discussed, my vote is for sale pending receipt of said voucher.

[Oak]

Oak - No
Summitthunting -
Big Slick - No
putm2sleep -
Mudranger1 - No
JohnCushman - No
Pagosa -
jlmatthew - No
justdada - No
sneakem - No
Dinkshooter - Maybe
Outdooraddict -
van franke - No
Khunter - No
T Bone -
arffdog875 -
Zach -
newhunter20 -
ColoradoOverwatch - No

Purple is gay.

[Pagosa]

Heck No. Below is what I wrote to the Commissioners several months ago about the issues I had with the program. I think the email went out to 15 or 18 individuals, no one returned my email. Probably too busy selling the other 5% of landowner tags. Until they elect individuals to the commission and voucher programs that represent the average hunter it will not change. Good luck with this one.



Hello Commissioners - My name is Preston Nelson and me my young family live in Fruita, CO. I wasn't able to attend the Landowner Voucher meeting in G.J. because I'm away on a temporary work assignment. I read the proposal on the CPW website and have a few comments.

I would first like to say thanks for your dedication to preserving Colorado's wildlife on our public and private lands for current and future generations. I want my son and daughter to enjoy similar hunting and fishing opportunities I have enjoyed since the early 1990's with my dad. I understand the difficulties of trying to solve multiple management problems while dealing with different public opinions. Additionally, I'm thankful for the private landowners that take care of public animals throughout the year.

From reading the CPW proposal the main issue I have is the increase of 5% of landowner tags for the western 1/2 of the state. This will diminish the available tags going into the general resident/non-resident pool. For example I have four points for elk and I applied for a unit 40 rifle tag, and I have six points for deer and having building points for a unit 66/67 rifle tag. Both units have a good mixture of public to private lands and low available tag numbers. The proposed increase of 5% would increase the overall preference points required and result in additional years in waiting to hunt. Secondly, I firmly believe that if a hunter or landowner acquires a landowner voucher they should lose their preference points for that species. Currently, both units have deer and elk tags selling for $1,500 to $10,000 which allows those with the financial means to buys permits and still compete in the annual CPW big game drawing process. I believe only the individual landowner should be able to sell/give the tags for the amount they are able to acquire from the willing hunter. This current process has developed into a money making business for a few select businessmen.

Finally if landowners and the CPW are concerned with public animals creating damage on private lands; then issue only antlerless tags which will further reduce the herd capacity, than killing immature/mature males from the herds. Limiting the ratio of male/female landowner vouchers would likely increase the price of male only tags for landowners.

Thanks for your consideration of this matter.

[CabinFever]

Someone must stand up for the poor outfitter/landowner buddy!

[dan.kirkpatrick]

I vote no or hell no!

[Zach]

As someone who hunts out east more and more, um... No Sir!

Do these changes in any way have to do with the combination of Wildlife and Parks?

[Oak]

Originally Posted by Zach

Do these changes in any way have to do with the combination of Wildlife and Parks?

No, the review committee worked on this proposal for 2 years. This is a good example of why I was very concerned with the proposed (and now approved) new Commission composition. The new commission includes:

3 landowner/agriculture reps
1 outfitter rep
2 sportsman's reps
2 at-large reps
3 recreationist reps, one which must be from a non-consumptive non-profit group

The average hunter who hunts on public land is really poorly represented now. These are the people that will be making the rules now. Few hunters bothered to stand up and voice an opinion when they had a chance, so I guess they deserve what they get.

[T Bone]

No,

[Oak]

Oak - No
Summitthunting -
Big Slick - No
putm2sleep -
Mudranger1 - No
JohnCushman - No
Pagosa - No
jlmatthew - No
justdada - No
sneakem - No
Dinkshooter - Maybe
Outdooraddict -
van franke - No
Khunter - No
T Bone - No
arffdog875 -
Zach - No
newhunter20 -
ColoradoOverwatch - No

Purple is gay.

[noharleyyet]

Occupy DOW?