Go Back   Hunt Talk Forums > HOT TOPICS > Fireside (A Place for Friends)

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 07-11-2012, 01:42 PM
Oak's Avatar
Oak Oak is offline
Expert
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Colorado
Posts: 10,417
Default Colorado Members, part 2

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 -
__________________
Every day I'm hustlin'....
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 07-11-2012, 01:49 PM
jlmatthew's Avatar
jlmatthew jlmatthew is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Colorado
Posts: 1,482
Default

No, I don't support the change
__________________
You stepped in what?
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 07-11-2012, 02:04 PM
justdada's Avatar
justdada justdada is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Colorado
Posts: 668
Default

No, I don't support the change
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 07-11-2012, 02:40 PM
van franke's Avatar
van franke van franke is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Colorado
Posts: 441
Default

No I don't support it
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 07-11-2012, 02:41 PM
Mudranger1's Avatar
Mudranger1 Mudranger1 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Colorado Springs, Co
Posts: 1,331
Default

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
__________________
I'm turning off Real Life Drive and thats right I'm hittin Easy Street on mud tires

Last edited by Mudranger1; 07-11-2012 at 02:47 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 07-11-2012, 02:44 PM
Summitthunting Summitthunting is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Crazy, CO
Posts: 892
Default

No, I don't support the change.
__________________
There is plenty of room for all of Gods creatures, right next to the mashed potatoes.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 07-11-2012, 02:52 PM
Oak's Avatar
Oak Oak is offline
Expert
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Colorado
Posts: 10,417
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mudranger1 View Post
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.
__________________
Every day I'm hustlin'....
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 07-11-2012, 02:56 PM
Mudranger1's Avatar
Mudranger1 Mudranger1 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Colorado Springs, Co
Posts: 1,331
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oak View Post
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
__________________
I'm turning off Real Life Drive and thats right I'm hittin Easy Street on mud tires
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 07-11-2012, 03:04 PM
jlmatthew's Avatar
jlmatthew jlmatthew is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Colorado
Posts: 1,482
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mudranger1 View Post
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
__________________
You stepped in what?

Last edited by jlmatthew; 07-11-2012 at 06:11 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 07-11-2012, 03:09 PM
Big Slick's Avatar
Big Slick Big Slick is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Northern Colorado
Posts: 1,433
Default

No, I do not support the change.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 07-11-2012, 03:23 PM
Khunter's Avatar
Khunter Khunter is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Colorado
Posts: 946
Default

No I do not support the change.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 07-11-2012, 03:37 PM
JohnCushman's Avatar
JohnCushman JohnCushman is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: South East Colorado
Posts: 3,149
Default

Hell NO
__________________
Newb bear hunter turned camp cook on the 2014 HT hunt
Striving to be Colorado's Sexiest Elk Hunter 2014
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 07-11-2012, 05:45 PM
sneakem sneakem is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Western, CO
Posts: 804
Default

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....
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 07-11-2012, 07:20 PM
Oak's Avatar
Oak Oak is offline
Expert
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Colorado
Posts: 10,417
Default

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 -
__________________
Every day I'm hustlin'....
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 07-11-2012, 07:52 PM
ColoradoOverwatch ColoradoOverwatch is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Elizabeth, Colorado
Posts: 36
Default

no, I don't support the change
sorry i missed part one.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 07-11-2012, 08:04 PM
Dinkshooter's Avatar
Dinkshooter Dinkshooter is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Colorado
Posts: 6,007
Default

As discussed, my vote is for sale pending receipt of said voucher.
__________________
Colorado's Sexiest Elk Hunter 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013 AND 2014?
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 07-11-2012, 08:24 PM
Oak's Avatar
Oak Oak is offline
Expert
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Colorado
Posts: 10,417
Default

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.
__________________
Every day I'm hustlin'....
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 07-11-2012, 09:08 PM
Pagosa Pagosa is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Montana
Posts: 234
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 07-11-2012, 09:43 PM
CabinFever's Avatar
CabinFever CabinFever is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: MT
Posts: 948
Default

Someone must stand up for the poor outfitter/landowner buddy!
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 07-11-2012, 09:49 PM
dan.kirkpatrick's Avatar
dan.kirkpatrick dan.kirkpatrick is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: mulino oregon
Posts: 974
Default

I vote no or hell no!
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 07-11-2012, 10:35 PM
Zach's Avatar
Zach Zach is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Gods Country, Colorado
Posts: 1,921
Default

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?
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 07-11-2012, 10:54 PM
Oak's Avatar
Oak Oak is offline
Expert
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Colorado
Posts: 10,417
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zach View Post
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.
__________________
Every day I'm hustlin'....
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 07-12-2012, 12:06 AM
T Bone T Bone is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: West Slope, CO
Posts: 3,699
Default

No,
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 07-12-2012, 08:34 AM
Oak's Avatar
Oak Oak is offline
Expert
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Colorado
Posts: 10,417
Default

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.
__________________
Every day I'm hustlin'....
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 07-12-2012, 08:44 AM
noharleyyet noharleyyet is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: TEXAS
Posts: 13,482
Default

Occupy DOW?
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:17 PM.