Landowner preference (voucher) proposed changes

Just got this response from Senator Gail Schwartz... :confused:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jason,

Thank you for contacting my office regarding SB13-188 as your input is critical in strengthening our democratic process and helps me to better represent our district.

SB13-188 is a result of a two year stakeholder process in order to address wildlife habitat on private lands, reward landowners for providing habitat, and provide more opportunity for all hunters. The committee of nine members represented hunters, landowners, outfitters, and CPW managers.

The voucher program leads to more available permits by increasing landowner tolerance for big game populations. The program encourages owners of farms and ranches to view wildlife as an asset by providing tangible benefits to landowners. These higher populations mean more opportunities for public hunters across the state on public and private lands. On the whole, public hunters benefit from larger populations. By comparison we have more big game than we did 30 years ago due to private land owner participation.

The bill makes several changes to the Landowner Preference program, which is the process that allocates big game hunting licenses to agricultural landowners through a system of transferable vouchers.
This SB188 tightens the eligibility requirements for participating landowners. It requires that smaller properties have their applications verified prior to enrolling, and that larger properties are subject to audits. Existing properties, under the program, will be grandfathered in for the first three years. Another change is that vouchers will no longer only be based on total acreage. Instead, the bill incorporates a proportional scale providing for one application for every 600 acres with maximum of 11,400acres. The Division of Colorado Parks and Wildlife will also collect data about prices paid for vouchers to address potential concerns regarding a high-price “market” for these vouchers. While there is currently no data that shows people paying for vouchers, SB13-188 protects ordinary hunters and safeguards against any misuse. With enforcement in mind, the bill prohibits brokering of vouchers and requires a landowner to give access to the entire parcel for which the voucher was issued. CPW has the authority to disqualify any landowner or hunter that violates any rule for up to five years.

Again, thank you for sharing your input regarding SB13-188 and I hope this information will be helpful. You can use the general assembly website to track the bill and listen to testimony when it is in committee. Please continue to contact me with feedback, input and questions in the future.

Link to SB-188 http://www.leg.state.co.us/clics/cl...B8B123187257AEE00571B65?Open&file=188_eng.pdf


From the office of:
Gail Schwartz, Colorado State Senator
Senate District 5
office: 303-866-4871
State Capitol Building, Room 332
Denver, CO 80203

fax: 303-866-4543
www.gailschwartz.org
 
My guess is that is the point. I'm guessing that the "staffers" have been replying to so many emails about the gun bills that they didn't even know what SB13-188 is.

Brophy is in the "it's good for everyone" camp. Especially when his family owns lots of land. He even said how frustrating it is to not be able to draw a tag to hunt his own property.

If I had that much land I'd take those LO tags for myself, no way i'd be selling them.

I've passed this issue onto a local CO hunting website, maybe 2 replies....:W:

What site?
 
Just got this response from Senator Gail Schwartz... :confused:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jason,

Thank you for contacting my office regarding SB13-188 as your input is critical in strengthening our democratic process and helps me to better represent our district.

SB13-188 is a result of a two year stakeholder process in order to address wildlife habitat on private lands, reward landowners for providing habitat, and provide more opportunity for all hunters. The committee of nine members represented hunters, landowners, outfitters, and CPW managers.

The voucher program leads to more available permits by increasing landowner tolerance for big game populations. The program encourages owners of farms and ranches to view wildlife as an asset by providing tangible benefits to landowners. These higher populations mean more opportunities for public hunters across the state on public and private lands. On the whole, public hunters benefit from larger populations. By comparison we have more big game than we did 30 years ago due to private land owner participation.

The bill makes several changes to the Landowner Preference program, which is the process that allocates big game hunting licenses to agricultural landowners through a system of transferable vouchers.
This SB188 tightens the eligibility requirements for participating landowners. It requires that smaller properties have their applications verified prior to enrolling, and that larger properties are subject to audits. Existing properties, under the program, will be grandfathered in for the first three years. Another change is that vouchers will no longer only be based on total acreage. Instead, the bill incorporates a proportional scale providing for one application for every 600 acres with maximum of 11,400acres. The Division of Colorado Parks and Wildlife will also collect data about prices paid for vouchers to address potential concerns regarding a high-price “market” for these vouchers. While there is currently no data that shows people paying for vouchers, SB13-188 protects ordinary hunters and safeguards against any misuse. With enforcement in mind, the bill prohibits brokering of vouchers and requires a landowner to give access to the entire parcel for which the voucher was issued. CPW has the authority to disqualify any landowner or hunter that violates any rule for up to five years.

Again, thank you for sharing your input regarding SB13-188 and I hope this information will be helpful. You can use the general assembly website to track the bill and listen to testimony when it is in committee. Please continue to contact me with feedback, input and questions in the future.

Link to SB-188 http://www.leg.state.co.us/clics/cl...B8B123187257AEE00571B65?Open&file=188_eng.pdf


From the office of:
Gail Schwartz, Colorado State Senator
Senate District 5
office: 303-866-4871
State Capitol Building, Room 332
Denver, CO 80203

fax: 303-866-4543
www.gailschwartz.org

Got the same one a bit ago. Pretty much sounds like she is teaching me a thing or two about the program!
 
Last edited:
I got that one, plus a similar one from another Senator. Also had one forwarded to me from another hunter. All pretty much told us to eat it. Republicans are going to stick It to us and smile, and Democrats have no clue what they are voting for. If CPW tells them it's a good thing, they think they are siding with hunters. Colorado hunters will not stand up for themselves, and nobody nationally is going to help them. Guess they will get what they deserve.
 
Last edited:
Ok, I don't know...but if a nonresident e-mails with their opinions on a issue does it really help? Just askin', Not that I'll ever hunt CO but wouldn't mind helpin' out when I can. Just askin'???? Probably too late for this issue.
 
I think it does depending on the issue and depending who it is you're dealing with.

In lots of cases, you just arent dealing with Representatives and Senators that have enough knowledge of hunting/conservation/wildlife issues to know how to vote or what to support.

Its a frustrating SOB though in a case like this where you're up against the CPW endorsing more landowner tags and telling the legislature its a good deal for hunters.

I'm afraid that until things get really bad...and I mean 50 percent of the total tags being given to landowners and outfitters...the average hunters will continue to play rip van winkle.

There just flat isnt enough concerned hunters out there to make a difference, and thats just flat sad. Hunters have relied on the few that have been carrying them for decades on these types of issues.

A handful of concerned hunters can no longer stop the attack on the publics wildlife resources...its going to take a unified effort by a majority of hunters...or she's all over but the pouting.

We're getting slaughtered...and nobody is bothering to stop it.

I'm really thankful that at least half of my hunting career is behind me and thankful I've had the opportunities I've had, as the future isnt looking that great. I'll continue to fight for the wildlife and next generation as much as I can, but it would be great if more people stepped up.
 
Last edited:
I got that one, plus a similar one from another Senator. Also had one forwarded to me from another hunter. All pretty much told us to eat it. Republicans are going to stick It to us and smile, and Democrats have no clue what they are voting for. If CPW tells them it's a good thing, they think they are siding with hunters. Colorado hunters will not stand up for themselves, and nobody nationally is going to help them. Guess they will get what they deserve.

It's sad that only a handful seemed to really care or put forth an effort.

Nice edit reason.
 
Its a lot easier for our elected officials in office just to hit send on 1000's of automated responses. It would be a lot harder to explain if they had to face 1000's of pissed off constituants face to face...:mad:
 
Totally agree...Buzz you nailed it...there's simply not enough concerned hunters. Until things are horrific and sportsmen sht a brick and revolt/stand up to make change, the wool will continue to be pulled...
 
Oak,
I am a fairly new resident (3.5 years at this point) and am military so I have lived in several states. I have now bought a house here and plan to remain. I have a couple of questions that may be too broad but I am going to ask anyway as it seems like something I want to get involved with.
First, I have a hard time understanding the landowner voucher idea outside of the RFW confines. Is the general gist of it that we are allowing landowners the access to these additional tags under the cover of "wildlife management" and then letting keep huge amounts of $$ from the proceeds?
Second, while understand it is a quite different resource pool than where I am from (IN), why is it accepted that folks with big $$ and big tracts of land get so much leeway? I am really confused. Is there somewhere I can get a cliff notes version :) Thanks
 
Second, while understand it is a quite different resource pool than where I am from (IN), why is it accepted that folks with big $$ and big tracts of land get so much leeway? I am really confused. Is there somewhere I can get a cliff notes version :) Thanks

Put that in a letter and send it to the Senate.
 
First, I have a hard time understanding the landowner voucher idea outside of the RFW confines. Is the general gist of it that we are allowing landowners the access to these additional tags under the cover of "wildlife management" and then letting keep huge amounts of $$ from the proceeds?
It is my understanding, and I'm sure it will be corrected if wrong, that these aren't additional tags. This is taking away from the existing pool of tags. So if you have 100 tags currently and 5% are allocated to LO's and 95% are for the draw, now you will have 100 tags with 15% going to LO's and 85% to the draw. Then if the draw doesn't get all the tags, the LO will have 1st crack at the leftovers.
I've printed the bill and keep reading it over and over trying to get through the legalease. It's rather confusing.
Second, while understand it is a quite different resource pool than where I am from (IN), why is it accepted that folks with big $$ and big tracts of land get so much leeway? I am really confused. Is there somewhere I can get a cliff notes version :) Thanks
Now you can take up Dinks idea, but you'd be sending it to the root of the problem.
 
It is my understanding, and I'm sure it will be corrected if wrong, that these aren't additional tags. This is taking away from the existing pool of tags. So if you have 100 tags currently and 5% are allocated to LO's and 95% are for the draw, now you will have 100 tags with 15% going to LO's and 85% to the draw. Then if the draw doesn't get all the tags, the LO will have 1st crack at the leftovers.
I've printed the bill and keep reading it over and over trying to get through the legalease. It's rather confusing.

Now you can take up Dinks idea, but you'd be sending it to the root of the problem.

Holy CRAP!! That is even worse than I imagined. I am in the Springs, is there a specific state senator or rep I should write to (I still vote in IN due to the military)? Any contact info will be appreciated.
 
Here is a good article about the proposed bill. You need to contact all members of the House right now. The bill has already passed the Senate.

does the bill name stay the same when contacting the House reps or does it change?

I'm new, I'm new I don't Know What to do!!!:W:
 
does the bill name stay the same when contacting the House reps or does it change?

I'm new, I'm new I don't Know What to do!!!:W:

The bill number is the same. It is scheduled for House Ag on April 10. Need to hit those committee members early and often.
 
are these the right people?


The House Agriculture, Livestock, and Natural Resources Committee generally considers matters concerning water, agriculture, wildlife, mineral development, and recreation. In addition, the committee has legislative oversight responsibility for the departments of Agriculture and Natural Resources.



Committee Members

Jerry Sonnenberg, Chair

Randy Baumgardner, Vice-Chair

J. Paul Brown Marsha Looper

Glenn Vaad

Don Coram Wes McKinley Edward Vigil
Randy Fischer Su Ryden

Roger Wilson



Matt Jones

Ray Scott





Staff Contact: Lauren Ris * Phone: (303) 866-3264

E-mail: [email protected]

www.colorado.gov/lcs/HouseAgNatResCmte
 

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
111,277
Messages
1,953,244
Members
35,107
Latest member
mttedoc
Back
Top