Landowner preference (voucher) proposed changes
- Thread starter Oak
- Start date
BuzzH
Well-known member
Why is the big question?
Do they have a position statement?
I also find it hard to believe that the Legislators are only hearing positive things about this bill. I know my emails werent on the positive side at all...but were from a NR's point of view.
It isnt a shock though that hunters are taking their usual apethetic path. I find it funny that many find plenty of time to hunt, and no doubt plenty of time to piss and moan on hunting boards...but then fail to do anything about saving the sport they claim to love so much.
It gets old. But, I guess if nobody is going to get involved...get used to the crumbs you're left with.
Sad...very sad.
I haven't seen an official position statement. But I was on the phone today with a couple of their board members, including the one that sat on the voucher committee, and they mentioned that CWF was in support of the bill. I emailed them at the end of the conference call to confirm what I thought I had heard, and they did confirm it.
BuzzH
Well-known member
I'm not doubting it...just cant get my mind around why CWF would be in support of anything that further privatizes the states wildlife resources.
In particular when the DOW is going to lose their butts on it financially and the Resident hunters are going to lose tags.
WOW!
In particular when the DOW is going to lose their butts on it financially and the Resident hunters are going to lose tags.
WOW!
BuzzH
Well-known member
Their support of this is hard to understand. Did CPW put together the committee that crafted the final recommendation and therefore they feel they must support it? Something else?
If the Department supported it; Colorado Bowhunters supported it; Colorado Wildlife Federation supported it, that explains why it passed 5-0 in the subcommittee.
Yes, CPW convened the committee in 2009. The committee worked for two years to come up with the recommendations. The committee was made up of 3 landowners, 3 sportsman's reps, 1 outfitter rep and 2 CPW employees. They took public comments during the process, but never let sportsmen comment on the final recommendations. I feel like sportsmen told them they had a sore toe, so the committee decided to amputate at the ankle.
Officially, CBA took no stance on the bill. One of their board members was on the committee and testified in favor of the bill. One of the other sportsman's reps is on the CWF board, and he convinced them it was a good compromise for sportsmen.
Officially, CBA took no stance on the bill. One of their board members was on the committee and testified in favor of the bill. One of the other sportsman's reps is on the CWF board, and he convinced them it was a good compromise for sportsmen.
elk_hunter
Active member
No joke, this was the response I just received from Matt Jones from my SB13-188 email.....
Dear Jason,
Earlier this week, I voted in committee for three common sense gun safety laws: background checks, fees to pay for background checks and not allowing concealed carry of guns on college campuses. I voted for these bills because I believe that they will save lives and because I think they do not infringe on Second Amendment rights.
I know some will disagree with my votes, but I think many more will agree. Emotions and feelings run high on both sides of this issue. I spent a lot of time listening to different points of view, and researching the information presented to me. For those of you that shared your heartfelt and thoughtful comments in conversation or by e-mail, I appreciate your feedback and participation in the democratic process.
For instance, I believe that everyone buying a gun should have to go through a background check. It makes it more difficult for criminals to obtain a gun. It is estimated by non-partisan legislative staff that about 37% of guns are sold in private transactions and are not currently subject to a background check.
Some argue that since criminals will get guns anyway, doing what we can is not worth the cost of infringing on the Second Amendment rights of citizens. I disagree. We cannot keep all criminals from obtaining guns, but that does not mean we should not take reasonable actions to stop them from getting a gun. Facts show that background checks are effective in keeping guns out of the hands of criminals.
In 2012, there were 343,302 background checks, in the state of Colorado, which prevented 1,571 felons from getting guns. Here is a breakout listing some of the reasons for the 7,462 applicant denials: restraining order – 420, kidnapping – 12, sexual assault – 133, robbery – 76, assault – 1,380, burglary – 618, larceny – 498, dangerous drugs – 1,069. While some of the 7,462 denials were appealed and reversed, I think the original numbers make the point.
Some argue that background checks infringe on Second Amendment Rights. I take the Constitutional Rights of people very seriously. The Supreme Court has determined time and again that there are reasonable limitations on all rights. Most recently, in DC v. Heller, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote, “like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th Century Cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”
The massacres at Aurora and at Sandy Hook were wake up calls. Day-to-day gun violence and suicide seem all too common. Both cause death and heartache. That is why I am voting for these and other common sense gun safety laws this session. I believe these laws will save lives.
Thank you,
State Senator Matt Jones
Dear Jason,
Earlier this week, I voted in committee for three common sense gun safety laws: background checks, fees to pay for background checks and not allowing concealed carry of guns on college campuses. I voted for these bills because I believe that they will save lives and because I think they do not infringe on Second Amendment rights.
I know some will disagree with my votes, but I think many more will agree. Emotions and feelings run high on both sides of this issue. I spent a lot of time listening to different points of view, and researching the information presented to me. For those of you that shared your heartfelt and thoughtful comments in conversation or by e-mail, I appreciate your feedback and participation in the democratic process.
For instance, I believe that everyone buying a gun should have to go through a background check. It makes it more difficult for criminals to obtain a gun. It is estimated by non-partisan legislative staff that about 37% of guns are sold in private transactions and are not currently subject to a background check.
Some argue that since criminals will get guns anyway, doing what we can is not worth the cost of infringing on the Second Amendment rights of citizens. I disagree. We cannot keep all criminals from obtaining guns, but that does not mean we should not take reasonable actions to stop them from getting a gun. Facts show that background checks are effective in keeping guns out of the hands of criminals.
In 2012, there were 343,302 background checks, in the state of Colorado, which prevented 1,571 felons from getting guns. Here is a breakout listing some of the reasons for the 7,462 applicant denials: restraining order – 420, kidnapping – 12, sexual assault – 133, robbery – 76, assault – 1,380, burglary – 618, larceny – 498, dangerous drugs – 1,069. While some of the 7,462 denials were appealed and reversed, I think the original numbers make the point.
Some argue that background checks infringe on Second Amendment Rights. I take the Constitutional Rights of people very seriously. The Supreme Court has determined time and again that there are reasonable limitations on all rights. Most recently, in DC v. Heller, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote, “like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th Century Cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”
The massacres at Aurora and at Sandy Hook were wake up calls. Day-to-day gun violence and suicide seem all too common. Both cause death and heartache. That is why I am voting for these and other common sense gun safety laws this session. I believe these laws will save lives.
Thank you,
State Senator Matt Jones
elk_hunter
Active member
That's some great stuff right there!
Mudranger1
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2010
- Messages
- 2,858
what does that response have to do with this issue? or is that the point
elk_hunter
Active member
Sorry, forgot to insert these smileys in my prior post:
Zach
Well-known member
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:
Why do landowners get vouchers to hunt public land? It seems weird too me. I can see them perhaps getting vouchers to hunt their private land or as Big Fin said, if they get public land vouchers they must open their property up.
Is there so many game animals thriving on private land in Colorado that they help support the populations on nearby public land?
Is this the logic behind the public land vouchers?
Just curious.
Is there so many game animals thriving on private land in Colorado that they help support the populations on nearby public land?
Is this the logic behind the public land vouchers?
Just curious.
Good question. Seems weird to me, too. The argument is that there are not always animals on the private lands during the hunting seasons.
The flawed logic is:
Vouchers give landowners the opportunity to hunt on their own lands.
Non-transferable vouchers would do the same thing.
Vouchers help compensate landowers for supporting wildlife populations on their property
There is nothing preventing landowners from selling trespass rights to those who draw tags in the regular drawing. CPW also has a very generous game damage program that will reimburse landowners for damage caused by big game. CPW will also work with landowners to reduce pressure from big game by issuing depredation hunts. There are currently areas in Colorado where we shoot elk from the middle of May through August for this purpose.
If we don't make some concessions to landowners now, they have threatened to run their own bill in the legislature and take an even higher percentage. (This is seriously a major reason why the current bill is being pushed by CPW.
)Let them do it, and we will fight them when it happens.
This bill is headed to the Senate Appropriations committee next, due to the fiscal note. It has not been calendared yet. The fiscal note says that it will cost $51,800 from the Wildlife Cash Fund to reprogram the draw computers. There is no mention of the lost revenue from allowing landowners more applications in the initial draw.
Current law allows landowners to apply for up to 6 big game licenses free of charge, other than the $3 application fee. Subsequent leftover applications cost $25 to $40, depending on the license. The proposed regulations in SB13-188 will increase the maximum number of "free" licenses from 6 to 19, before having to pay the fees. Therefore, landowners may not be required to pay the fee for up to 13 licenses that would be required under the current law.
As an example, I looked at draw data for deer from last year. There were 1,081 deer vouchers drawn in the leftover draw last year: 828 buck or either sex at $40, and 253 doe at $25. That's $39,445 in deer vouchers. Now how many of those might now be drawn the the initial draw....I'm not sure. I have emailed the Senate Appropriations Committee and asked them to consider this before advancing the bill. Committee members are:
Mary Hodge - Chair
[email protected]
303-866-4855
Pat Steadman - Vice-chair
[email protected]
303-866-4861
Ted Harvey
[email protected]
303-866-4881
Rollie Heath
303-866-4872
[email protected]
Kent Lambert
303-866-4835
[email protected]
Scott Renfroe
303-866-4451
[email protected]
Jessie Ulibarri
303-866-4857
[email protected]
Assuming this makes it out of Appropriations, it will likely be referred to the full Senate next. Wouldn't hurt to start contacting those folks now.
Senate Directory
.
Current law allows landowners to apply for up to 6 big game licenses free of charge, other than the $3 application fee. Subsequent leftover applications cost $25 to $40, depending on the license. The proposed regulations in SB13-188 will increase the maximum number of "free" licenses from 6 to 19, before having to pay the fees. Therefore, landowners may not be required to pay the fee for up to 13 licenses that would be required under the current law.
As an example, I looked at draw data for deer from last year. There were 1,081 deer vouchers drawn in the leftover draw last year: 828 buck or either sex at $40, and 253 doe at $25. That's $39,445 in deer vouchers. Now how many of those might now be drawn the the initial draw....I'm not sure. I have emailed the Senate Appropriations Committee and asked them to consider this before advancing the bill. Committee members are:
Mary Hodge - Chair
[email protected]
303-866-4855
Pat Steadman - Vice-chair
[email protected]
303-866-4861
Ted Harvey
[email protected]
303-866-4881
Rollie Heath
303-866-4872
[email protected]
Kent Lambert
303-866-4835
[email protected]
Scott Renfroe
303-866-4451
[email protected]
Jessie Ulibarri
303-866-4857
[email protected]
Assuming this makes it out of Appropriations, it will likely be referred to the full Senate next. Wouldn't hurt to start contacting those folks now.
Senate Directory
.
It's so interesting how different each state is when it comes to managing wildlife. Man, it's almost laughable at times. I amazed at how many so-called Republicans state they are for FREE markets, but they want the odds legislated into their favor. I guess we are all guilty of this at some level, but you gotta love the politics.
No, I am not a Demi either.
No, I am not a Demi either.
