Colorado Landowner Vouchers
New Mexico Archery Elk
Colorado Bull called in to 30 yards
by Pat Lefemine
Colorado Public Land Elk
|Put Your Video Clip Here!
Does anyone know of any available vouchers for unit 76??
must be looking for rifle.
good luck almost impossible to find. Hire a guide with some is about your only option.
No, looking for Archery.
Are they really that bad??
Not that bad.....just a tad too late. Should have secured one back in July/August.
I'm sorry, I should have clarified. I'm looking for 2009 vouchers.
You probably won't get anything nailed down this early - for a variety of reasons - but one more reason is that the CDOW and the Souther Ute Indian Tribe just signed a Brunot Agreement that may be changing what voucher and tags look like for us next year.
...there is press release on the CDOW web page, and also a brief discussion about it on the Rocky Mountain Bighorn Society web page www.bighornsheep.org in the discussion forum.
Hopefully someone knows of some that will be available!!
You'll have to wait till after the draw next year. LO Vouchers are actually drawn for, so the LOs won't know how many tags and what seasons they have till after the draw. If you want to contact some landowners ahead of time, that might be worthwhile as archery vouchers are less frequently put in for. If you have an agreement ahead of time, it could help the chances, and the cost.
Unit 76 is something like 99% public land, yet 15% of the tags still go to private landowners. You've probably got one or two landowners getting all the tags.
Why this state sees it as fair for someone to step to front of the license line because they will pay more cash is beyond me. Guys wait for years to draw this tag, but hey if you've got 10 grand....no problem, you can hunt next year. It is hunters, allowing other hunters to screw themselves today, and for generations to come.
If you buy a voucher, at a minimum you should lose your preference points.
Well, my understanding is the landowners recieve the tags in lieu of cash for damages incurred by wildlife and are on their own to recoup any losses. Should CO just raise taxes a little more to reimburse them?
wbuffetjr1, You are wrong on your thoughts concerning PLO vouchers here in Colorado. It, the PLO vouchers program is a politically motivated commercialization of our wildlife strictically for the benifit of land owners that do not even have to have any wildlife on there land or the species for which the vouchers are offered!
Guys, put yourselves in a LO's shoes, You own land, pay higher taxes for it, crop losses, etc, and can't even hunt the land due to draw odds?? That's the intent, and I think the intent is very valid. LO's are putting the most in the pot as far as local taxes are concerned, so they should get something out of it.
Does it really matter if the LO or their immediate family get the benefit from hunting themselves, or selling the tag?
They've made some good tweaks to the rule in the last couple years (taking 'brokers' out of the picture), so I think it's a great program.
Your understanding is inaccuarate.
The nonresident wait for unit 76 is seven years at a minimum. Get in line, and wait like everyone else.
19 private land parcels are registered in unit 76. If each parcel is the minimum 160 acres, that means only ~3000 acres control 15% of the licenses for the whole unit. There is currently no limit on leftovers for landowners, so they get all 15% for archery, rifle and muzzleloader season. The 3000 acres is entitled to get 24 either sex archery licenses, 10 muzzleloader bull tags, 30 first season rifle bull tags, 10 2nd rifle bull tags, and 5 3rd season bull tags. I haven't even mentioned the deer tags they get. 79 bull tags at at for arguments sake $10,000 a pop.....$790,000 in income annually becaue you own a measly 3,000 acres? Oh wait, I forgot the deer revenue....
I don't have a problem with capitalism, but this type of activity screws over the next hunter who happens to be waiting up to 7 years of his life. Another 79 guys who are devoting the most precious thing they will ever have (TIME) could hunt annually if you weren't going to steal there place in line becuase you'll shell out the cash.
If we wanted a fair capitalist system, why don't they just let the public at large sell their own preference points? I've got 11 of them, and I have waited for 11 years so you can steal my place in line....how much would you pay me for them?
You're making some pretty big assumptions - 1) that all 19 properties are the bare minimum acreage and 2) that you can find 79 people willing to pay $10K just for a tag.
I have purchased 3 LO vouchers in Co over the years (deer & antelope), and paid no more than the cost of a NR license for any of them. I think your figures are a little (a lot) high, vouchers in the 12 year units aren't that high.
Unit 76 is highly sought after, we are not talking about eastern plains antelope. My figures are from CDOW data - 79 tags, only 19 parcels, all which MAY be owned by one person. As far as market price, we can all only speculate, but the simple question is what is someone willing to pay instead of waiting for 7-20 years of their life to jump to the front of the line?
So you'd be ok then txnrog giving up your points when use a voucher, so another hunter who faithfully waits in line can get his license someday? Why is it fair to keep your points, and get the license you want?
Why give up my points? Why not take advantage of the system that is in place, and build points while also saving to acquire a landowner tag if that's high on my list of priorities? Heck, if it were that important to me to hunt that specific unit, I could save 7 years, and save points and hunt it two years in a row?
It all goes back to the argument over money and hunting. If you have looked for a voucher you would know that brokers still play a big part of it. At least CO isn't as bad at UT with LO tags and Auctions taking the rest,and rifle in the peak of the rut, leaving horrible odds for the rest.
How good will 76 be once "Natives" from a different "Nation" start hunting it.
"Why not take advantage of the system"
Isn't the system really - other hunters? Aren't they the ones being taken advantage of?
Just maybe you shouldn't "take advantage" because your "sacrifice" of points would benefit others? Just maybe, not participating in "the system" will help drive hunting costs lower or hold them steady for future hunters? Just maybe, it would open more access for everyone? No offense intended, but I couldn't describe a me-me-me world & attitude better then you just did. I am trying to teach my 2 year old how to share with other kids, but what is the point if the adult world doesn't really follow the practice of putting others first.
Grasshopper, I earn the points by investing time, and I earn the $ by investing work, I would sacrifice either for the benefit of a tag, why would I invest in a loosing proposition? It's not intended to be selfishness, it's common sense in a capitalist economy.
How are other hunters being taken advantage of? Other hunters have the same opportunity to save for a LO tag, or invest the time to draw it, or go hunt OTC every year like I do until I gain enough points or $ to go another route. I think it's great to have multiple options to secure a tag. Remove the LO option, and you get 15% more tags, so maybe that drops the points required by a year. . .
I just think it's a blessing that we have multiple opportunities that mean you don't have to be rich to hunt.
Like I said, if you want common sense in a capitalist system, allow the public at large to be able to sell their own points. Everyone can participate, which levels the playing field. With this system, your selling your own invested time, as you point out, not a living, breathing, god made creature sold by a select few participants.
I would be perfectly fine with a system where I could sell my points. But, I think you would exacerbate the issue you seem concerned about, which I gather is ensuring that there is equal opportunity at tags.
Equal opportunity at tags would be nice, and the voucher program creates an unlevel playing field for hunters. The system isn't capitalist at all today. It is unjust in its regulation, at best.
If its ok to prostitute wildlife through the unjust voucher program, why can't we all prostitute wildlife by selling our points? Results aside, it would be a level playing field for all, and that is what government should provide IMO.
I still can't understand why a landowner and higher tax payer should have zero preference to access the game on their land? Heck, I even have a hard time understanding why they wouldn't have greater access to animals within the same unit.
And I do not own land in CO (other than the fraction of a fraction of an acre my house sits on), but would love to someday, and would expect some benefit in the form of access to hunting privileges as a result of the investment.
1. Property zoned agricultural has the cheapest taxes of any property type. Look it up at your county assesors office. I pay $1800 annually for my property taxes, I would wager that is equivalent to the taxes on a 20,000 acre ranch in my county.
2. Ag landowners have literally thousands of grant and subsidy programs to financially assist them. What programs does the average joe hunter have to help him hunt on private lands, that harbor state wildlife? I can think of 2 in Colorado.
As well, if ag property goes into foreclosure, they get 6 more months to pull it out as compared to residential & commercial property.
When will hunters start making it about programs that benefit all other hunters? I personally hope Colorado never moves to the Texas system of of totally fee based hunting.
I want to jump in if I may. Txnrog, do the land owners really pay higher taxes because of the land they own? What about the tax breaks they receive if the land is considered agricultural or "greenbelt"? Sometimes these tax breaks are so severe that they pay little if any taxes on that land. As a commercial real estate appraiser I have seen this personally in several situations of ag land I have appraised. If you question this then pull county tax records for these parcels (which is public record) and see for yourself. It is online and very easy to do.
So what are the vouchers reimbursing then, crop losses? Crop losses are marginal compared to the revenue they receive from the tags. The trend is that landowners who have either had the land for generations, or have bought recently, do so with the intent to "farm" a small portion in order to receive vouchers which they know goes for big money in units with trophy potential or at least great hunting. This is not the case with all landowners of course, but many are going this way and to me that is taking tags away from others under false pretenses.
A simple fix to the landowner who would like to have tags, 1.They apply for these tags as nontransfer with their name or a direct family members name. 2.Allowed only X amount of tags per AG property in same unit as AG property. If wildlife are createing damage to this property they should be willing to let people on the property to control damage. Just my 2 cents.
I always felt they should be 'transferable/sold' if they could only hunt on the actual private ground not Unit wide and that if they are not 'transferable/sold' for the rancher/family only then they could be unit wide....
Anyways....I really do not see any real restrictions as far as taking the 'broker' out of the mix.....
You can pre-deposite via Huntin'Fool for Colo-LO tags.....
Good luck, Robb
As I understand, you're supposed to pay directly to the landowner - that was intended to take the broker out of the mix.
I don't disagree with either of the restrictions above if used in combination - i.e. If the landowner or immediate family use the tag it is valid unit wide, if they transfer, it's only valid on their land.
The basis that those who buy vouchers are "cutting in line" is a false analogy. There are two different systems in play that everyone has the ability to participate in. The fact the many folks do not participate in the voucher system is on them, and is not a commentary on those who do.
"I don't disagree with either of the restrictions above if used in combination - i.e. If the landowner or immediate family use the tag it is valid unit wide, if they transfer, it's only valid on their land."
What if LO's suffer wildlife-related damage during the year, but the animals are not on their property during hunting seasons (i.e. their property is a wintering ground)? Is it fair to differentiate between the level of compensation paid to LO's based on the time of year the animals are on their property? I think not, and that is why a unit wide designation makes sense.
The basis of "cutting in line" is not false, I have been waiting for 11 years to draw, while the program has been in place for some time, it continues to frequently evolve, and my "place in line" changes. With the implementation of the recent pilots, they added more tags for landowners in the unit I am shooting for. Guess what, they are killing more bulls, and my hunt quality in terms of mature bulls may degraded. With the new change, I may want to completely jump to a different line. Hunters keep getting screwed with the program, I wish you were capable of opening your eyes and seeing it from someone elses perspective other then yours. The program is again being discussed by the decison makers as a part of BGSS
I can't understand how all can participate in privitization of wildlife when a unit 201 voucher brings $12,500. I don't know any guys from my archery club, who perform critical activities like youth hunter recruitment, that can participate on thier school teacher and construction job salaries. I disagree completely.
I'll try "Matt logic" though....if a guys own land, that doesn't harbor wildlife during the hunting season....we can both agree the landowners orginal intent in buying the place was not to hunt the property, or not to produce a hunting related income from it, since it harbors no huntable wildlife in open seasons. If he is not going to hunt it - we can rule out the original intent of the program at inception - which was to provide another management tool to increase hunting pressure on private lands. hmm - no need for a voucher program there.
Yet, with the existing program, It now incents people to "invest" in a 160 acre parcel of unvegetated worthless land on the valley floor, and use it to acquire unit wide licenses. Since the program requires voucher purchasers get hunter access to the land the voucher was issued for - we can further dissapoint the voucher purchasers by giving them the statutory access requirement to the "vouchered" private land, that holds no wildlife. Further, beyond driving the cost of hunting upward for everyone, the program can now manipulate the price of worthless land upward too, further benefitting a select segment of the population? What a great program, we can create not only a commercial market for wildlife, but we can also drive land prices higher! What a wonderful program we can all sing the praises of...hunters unite!
The truth is game damage can already be claimed by landowners who acquire vouchers. Problem is the program prohibits payments if you charge for hunting. I believe we still have the biggest game damage budget in the west. Should we let'um double dip Matt? Wait, with all the other state and federal programs, including sellable Colorado tax credits...it would be way more then a double dip....
The truth is Colorado also has HPP. 5% of all license revenue goes into this program, which objective is to prevent landowner/wildlife conflict, like damage - through many forms of habitat manipulation. You can get it whether you charge for hunting or not. another dip in the cash subsidy pot.
I also hope Colorado does not follow the California model of fee based hunting acceptance and encouragement, Sorry Matt, you can keep it.
Personally, I think it is high time the courts looked at an equitable solution, because the legislature has failed the hunting public. I wonder if the ACLU would take the case at no cost.....
Again!! Grasshopper you sure do have a way of invading my threads and turrning them into your soap box!! After reading both threads I have realized that, while you try to seem otherwise, you are very me, me, me. You are upset that someone can do/afford something that you cannot. Should I complain because a Yukon Moose hunt is $15k? I cannot do that and that is not fair. If all those A holes would stop going then prices would come down and I could go. Those jerks are selfish and screwing other hunters. If people would stop buying these darn plasma tv's prices would come down and I could get one . . . those selfish jerks too. Why don't you try to make some sacrifices in other areas of your life and you could probably get a LO tag yourself. What kind of car do you drive? Do you smoke, drink, etc? I bet if I looked at your finances we could find the extra $$ you need. ONE EXAMPLE, I drive a 12 year old Honda Civic with 250k miles on it just so that I can spend more on hunting. Some make more sacrifices than others brother. Maybe you should start sacrificing more and stop screaming "THIS ISN"T FAIR WAH". Are you voting for Obama??
Grasshoppper tends to have more stts/facts then the rest of you combined. Voucher system in OC is B.S. WY has a fair system, you get landowner tags if your name is on the deed, only, and is for your property only. Scary thing is that Ranching For Wildlife is probably a worse proagram for the common CO resident. We get fe w if any bull/buck tags, hutn the poorer dates, small parcel of the ranch, they use any weapon they want, when they want, and are laughing at the CDOW and general public. I know this for a fact as I know outfitters who are using RFW ranches and they admit we are getting screwed for what they in turn provide to the general public in return as far as tags/access. My solution, hunt CO as infrequently as possible-WY-UT-NV for me.
Your thread? Public domain.
I made over 500k in gross profit this year being self employed. I also paid 35% capital gains tax on all of it, along with 5% to the state, and 15% self employment tax. What the hec does my earned income have to do with anything? I can afford vouchers, but my conscience, morals and values don't have a price attached to them. Selling manmade objects, no problem, capitalize on it in a somewhat free market. Market based hunting? Is that your best point? I thought we outlawed it back in the early 1900's, but apparently it is gaining popularity again.
I happen to have voted for Mccain, because I'd like to keep the money I earn. Still, I won't spend it on vouchers, and justify my right to screw other hunters because " I work hard, and I've earned it".