Are they really that bad??
...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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
How good will 76 be once "Natives" from a different "Nation" start hunting it.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
"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.
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.....
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".