Brunton
  #1  
Old 07-30-2012, 12:17 PM
Oak's Avatar
Oak Oak is offline
Expert
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Colorado
Posts: 10,318
Default Colorado members, part 3

So now we have determined that the following people do not support the proposed changes to the landowner voucher allocation:

Oak
Big Slick
Mudranger1
JohnCushman
Pagosa
jlmatthew
justdada
sneakem
Outdooraddict
van franke
Khunter
T Bone
Zach
newhunter20
ColoradoOverwatch

The following either don't have an opinion or do support the change:

Summitthunting -
putm2sleep -
Dinkshooter -
arffdog875 -

Of those of you who who do not support the change, how many will take the time to write an email to the CPW director and the Wildlife Commission to voice your opposition? The list of names and email addresses is below, along with a list of all the email addresses together that you can cut and paste into the address box if you choose to send a single email.

Oak - Yes
Big Slick -
Mudranger1 -
JohnCushman -
Pagosa -
jlmatthew -
justdada -
sneakem -
Outdooraddict -
van franke -
Khunter -
T Bone -
Zach -
newhunter20 -
ColoradoOverwatch -

Ex-officio commissioners

CPW director: Rick Cables - rick.cables@state.co.us
Commissioner of Agriculture: John Salazar - john.salazar@ag.state.co.us
Executive Director of DNR: Mike King - mike.king@state.co.us

Wildlife Commissioners

John Singletary - singletarys@live.com
William Kane - william.kane1@comcast.net
Mark Smith - msmith422@hotmail.com
Robert Bray - brayhunt@frontier.net
Chris Castilian - chris.castilian@anadarko.com
Jeane Horne - jeanneh@jbarhoutfitters.com
Gaspar Perricone - perricone.cpw@gmail.com
James Pribyl - james.pribyl@level3.com
Jim Vigil - jimvigil@wildblue.net
Dean Wingfield - deanwingfield@hotmail.com
Michelle Zimmerman - cpwzimmerman@gmail.com


rick.cables@state.co.us, john.salazar@ag.state.co.us, mike.king@state.co.us, singletarys@live.com, william.kane1@comcast.net, msmith422@hotmail.com, brayhunt@frontier.net, chris.castilian@anadarko.com, jeanneh@jbarhoutfitters.com, perricone.cpw@gmail.com, james.pribyl@level3.com, jimvigil@wildblue.net, deanwingfield@hotmail.com, cpwzimmerman@gmail.com

These are YOUR tags they are trying to give away to the landowners. If you don't think it will make a difference in the draw, or you think this has already been decided, you are sorely men. Once the change has gone through, you won't have the opportunity to do a thing about it.

Also, anyone who is not on the list can also comment, including non-residents. If you are trying to draw a tag in CO, this will have a bigger impact on you, as your tags are more limited than residents.

Once again, here is the link to the proposed changes: LVRC Recommendations
__________________
Every day I'm hustlin'....
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 07-30-2012, 12:51 PM
jlmatthew's Avatar
jlmatthew jlmatthew is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Colorado
Posts: 1,454
Default

I was the only Sportsman in attendance at the Colorado Springs meeting with Rick Cables and have written to all the Commissioners and my local Reps so put a big fat "YES" next to my name
__________________
You stepped in what?
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 07-30-2012, 01:00 PM
van franke's Avatar
van franke van franke is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Colorado
Posts: 441
Default

Its already been put into cyberspace so the thats a yes from me..
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 07-30-2012, 01:22 PM
sneakem sneakem is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Western, CO
Posts: 798
Default

Done...
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 07-30-2012, 02:38 PM
Zach's Avatar
Zach Zach is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Gods Country, Colorado
Posts: 1,862
Default

I'm not looking for a letter to cut and paste, but do you, or anyone else, have something they have written in general to voice their opinion?

I'll try to get these written this week.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 07-30-2012, 02:48 PM
sneakem sneakem is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Western, CO
Posts: 798
Default

To Whom it may concern:


Hello my name is $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ and I am writing to you to express my concern with the recent proposal to increase landowner vouchers in the State of Colorado. I think that you'll find that the majority of Colorado hunters will share the same opinion as I do. Iam a fifth generation born and raised from this great state of ours. Hunting has been a part of not only my life, but also generations of friends and family here in Colorado. Over the years, opportunities for sportsman here in Colorado have been diminishing between the need for quality game herds, increasing resident population, demand for out of state licenses, bad winter conditions affecting herds and a number of other uncontrollable circumstances. Yet we are encountering another obstacle to diminishing opportunities towards hunting.


However this particular influence is controllable and lies within the hands of the very same people I am writing this letter of concern to now. Land owners are now wanting an increased percentage of tags to be taken from the hands of your everyday sportsman. Landowners already maintain 15% of the tags issued in Colorado before your everyday citizens have the opportunity to apply for these same tags. They also have the ability to auction these tags to the highest bidder, giving the benefit to wealthy people to surpass the waiting process that many of your average citizens endure waiting for an opportunity to hunt. These tags are not only valid for the private land for wich they are issued, but for all the public lands surrounding. There are many concerns to your "Average Joe" public about the system already in place and has received much scrutiny for those reasons. Now an additional 5% is being sought by those landowners and certain members of society who are already taking from the public. The current system needs to have the flaws fixed before an increase is proposed.


I think that you will find with research that groups searching for increased shares of public tags are less than popular and have started to meet a strong resistance throughout the Western United States. There is building animosity between wealthy landowner, groups like SFW, outfitters and the general public opposing the greed of said groups when it comes to a public resource such as wildlife. Numerous measures have been stuck down by the general public regarding the "sale" of public wildlife to those who have the largest bank account. A few of the members of this commission profit from this very same system and an increase in tags would only benefit those involved. In most parts of the United States that could be construed as a conflict of interest.


I ask that you, as representatives of the people of this great state, please take time to note the concern from your citizens. Please understand that I, as well as many others, oppose the proposed increase of tags. I hope that the screams of average citizens do not fall on deaf ears, but on helping hands. Hands that take action, not send generic replies via email expressing the appreciation for my and others concern. Please take time to review this increase and perhaps even realize this is not what "we" the people of Colorado and the greater population of the United States for that matter, really want. Thank you for your time... and hopefully your support!


Sincerely,

##########
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 07-30-2012, 05:35 PM
sneakem sneakem is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Western, CO
Posts: 798
Default

You really think our commission reads anything??? Probably like they listen to biologist recommendations...First reply...

Thank you for your opinion.


Regards, Jim

James Pribyl
Vice President, Government Affairs
Legal Department




It will be interesting to see their responses to everyone that does send an email...
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 07-30-2012, 06:05 PM
Zach's Avatar
Zach Zach is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Gods Country, Colorado
Posts: 1,862
Default

Thanks Sneakem. I arnt very gud wif werds!
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 07-30-2012, 06:08 PM
elkkill2006's Avatar
elkkill2006 elkkill2006 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Colorado
Posts: 235
Default

I had already sent out email's when they had the meeting over here on the West Slope. I have never been fortunate enough to see this type of stuff work, but you must try. Helk I have not had a response yet from when I sent out my email's.

sneakem,

I really enjoyed your excellent write up !

Quinton
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 07-30-2012, 07:01 PM
putm2sleep's Avatar
putm2sleep putm2sleep is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Colorado
Posts: 1,854
Default

I will wordsmith it, and try it! Thanks for taking the time and effort to pass out this form letter along sneakem.
------------
Down with vouchures and down with NR tags and numbers.
Up with resident draw success and up with NR fees.
Out with whackjobs that play Batman and Obama.
In with NRA (all in no pun), gun rights and someone in office that is worht a $hit!
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 07-30-2012, 07:54 PM
JohnCushman's Avatar
JohnCushman JohnCushman is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: South East Colorado
Posts: 2,924
Default

I'll do it too
__________________
Newb bear hunter turned camp cook on the 2014 HT hunt
Striving to be Colorado's Sexiest Elk Hunter 2014
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 07-30-2012, 08:24 PM
jlmatthew's Avatar
jlmatthew jlmatthew is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Colorado
Posts: 1,454
Default

Great letter sneakem, much more eloquent than mine
__________________
You stepped in what?
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 07-30-2012, 08:48 PM
Summitthunting Summitthunting is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Crazy, CO
Posts: 869
Default

Colorado members part 2, post #6, no I dont support the change. And yes I will write a letter.
__________________
There is plenty of room for all of Gods creatures, right next to the mashed potatoes.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 07-30-2012, 08:53 PM
sneakem sneakem is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Western, CO
Posts: 798
Default

I think that most people don't do it because they don't know what to say. But it's much like a petition, they don't look at how beautiful your signature is, they just look at the numbers of signatures.

The commissioner's could check their email and have 20 or so eloquently written emails or they could have 50,000 that say "shove your increase where the sun doesn't shine" ... which do you think is going to get their attention?

It's as easy as a bad TV show... if you don't like the show your watching, don't wait and hope someone will change it for you, just push the ing button and change it yourself...
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 07-30-2012, 10:37 PM
Outdooraddict Outdooraddict is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Western CO
Posts: 363
Default

I'll have a "YES" to my name now.
__________________
"Life is tough... but it's tougher when you're stupid."
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 07-30-2012, 10:50 PM
Oak's Avatar
Oak Oak is offline
Expert
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Colorado
Posts: 10,318
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Summitthunting View Post
Colorado members part 2, post #6, no I dont support the change. And yes I will write a letter.
Sorry Summitt, missed you in all the back-and-forth I was doing between posts.
__________________
Every day I'm hustlin'....
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 08-02-2012, 05:35 AM
Pagosa Pagosa is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Montana
Posts: 217
Default

Oak - I will write the commissioners this weekend.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 08-09-2012, 07:40 PM
sneakem sneakem is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Western, CO
Posts: 798
Default

The second response to the email....

Quote:
Director Cables asked me to respond to your email about the landowner voucher program. He and the members of the Commission all sincerely appreciate the thought you’ve put into this important issue.



The landowner voucher program has been contentious for many years, and it is no easy task to find a solution that improves the situation for everyone. As you may know, our agency convened a committee to look at this program that included both landowners and public land hunters. Even though the members of this committee didn’t agree on every issue, they did agree that the program needs to (1) support wildlife habitat on private lands and (2) promote hunting opportunity for all hunters, on private and public land. The recommendations of that group included a variety of changes to tighten up the program and ensure a clearer linkage between wildlife habitat and program benefits.



By helping landowners see the benefits of wildlife, the voucher program has encouraged them to provide habitat for big game on their private land. Over the last few decades, landowners across the state have come to accept dramatically larger big game herds than they did in the past. This has meant literally tens of thousands more animals for everyone to hunt. Even though the program does set aside some licenses for landowners, on balance it has resulted in a bigger pool of licenses for all hunters.


As you know, the committee recommended changing the 15 percent set aside for landowners under the current program. On the Western Slope, the group recommended that the program should set aside 20 percent with the requirement that half of these vouchers must be used on private land. This is in contrast to the current program where all 15 percent can be used anywhere in the unit, on public or private land. Even though the total is increased slightly, the number of vouchers that can be used on public land is reduced. On the Eastern Plains, the group recommended increasing the proportion to 25 percent but with a requirement that the additional licenses be used by immediate family members. Again here, the intent is to drive more voucher activity on to private land.


I realize that you still might oppose this change, but I hope you see the logic behind it. As the agency continues to implement this program, we will stay focused on the goals of expanding public hunter opportunity and supporting wildlife habitat on private lands.


Thanks again for taking the time to send in your ideas on this issue. Please feel free to email/call if you’d like to discuss this further.



Dave Chadwick

Colorado Parks and Wildlife

6060 Broadway

Denver, CO 80216

office: 303-291-7174

cell: 303-242-6475

dave.chadwick@state.co.us
__________________
"Stupid is as stupid does..."

http://fenderimages.com/
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 08-09-2012, 07:59 PM
jlmatthew's Avatar
jlmatthew jlmatthew is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Colorado
Posts: 1,454
Default

I wonder if he uses that same response for everyone

He was a real interesting dude who was giving it his all to try and convince me that the proposed recommendation was the only way to go. From what I gathered he wouldnt know the difference between a deer and a quail
__________________
You stepped in what?
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 08-10-2012, 07:09 AM
sneakem sneakem is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Western, CO
Posts: 798
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jlmatthew View Post
I wonder if he uses that same response for everyone

He was a real interesting dude who was giving it his all to try and convince me that the proposed recommendation was the only way to go. From what I gathered he wouldnt know the difference between a deer and a quail
So here's some interesting "food" for thought. I had some spare time to kill last night so I thought I would just sort through the statistics page from the CPW. So they want 20% of tags before the draw to be "reserved" for landowners west of I-25. That leaves the rest of us with 80% of the total alotment of those tags. Now I looked at the limited draw information for elk, being that they're mostly all west of I-25. In addition to the landowner vouchers we also issue tags that are good for private land only, available in the public draw. I was bored so I sorted through and total all the tags that were good for private land only. There were 5905 either sex elk and 11,631 antlerless elk. That's a total of 17, 536 tags valid only on private land. Being there are 121, 432 limited entry elk tags that makes an additional 14.4% that are valid on only private land.

What I'm gettting around to is that those of us that have to hunt public land really only have availability to roughly 65% of the total tags to start with. Factor in a 65/35 split assuming that the few units with 80/20 splits have so few tags to effect the ratio statistically and you have residents with roughly 42 % of limited entry elk tags and nonresidents with 23 % of limited entry elk tags...

Sounds like a great deal for your average joe DIY public land hunter. Surely those figures have to be on par with the rest of the states...

Those poor landowners......
__________________
"Stupid is as stupid does..."

http://fenderimages.com/
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 08-12-2012, 07:49 AM
jlmatthew's Avatar
jlmatthew jlmatthew is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Colorado
Posts: 1,454
Default

Maybe you guys could help encourage the Outdoor writer at the Denver Post to write an article about whats going on. I still havent recieved a response from him, but maybe if others would raise the question he'd look into it or at least report whats happening

Scott Willoughby: 303-954-1993, swilloughby@denverpost.com
__________________
You stepped in what?
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 09:05 PM.