Contributors to this thread:
LO Voucher - Abuse...again...
Ok, I am always looking at the system to see how land owner vouchers are being distributed. I believe this violates the current law(theft). You tell me what you think is wrong with this ad. I believe there is something glaring...
The second picture of the muzzleloader with the scope????? He may have been using it during a rifle season.
"Private land and the voucher usually cost up to $2000" maybe??? idk
Yeah, is there something illegal about selling the voucher cheap so long as you pay for a guided trip?
I'm confused, but I don't look into the LO program much because it's way out of my league.
I don't see anything illegal unless the poster isn't the land owner or the designated land manager. Can't just be the rancher saying "Yeah, Joe is the land manager". There is a form that needs to be filled out.
The wording about "voucher only" and "..voucher and land" is screwy because the voucher always includes the land it was applied for with but its possible that a voucher and trespass fee for additional land was what they mean. If they were to sell the voucher for $95 and say it doesn't come with permission, they would be breaking the rules.
I admittedly don't know much about the voucher rules, maybe if there is something wrong you should report it to CPW. Did you do that already?
If you always assume they’re doing the wrong thing, you could potentially read into that craigslist post as an illegal voucher sale...
Then again, if you always give people the benefit of doubt, it seems like they’re on the up and up.
It’s a daily thing to work on, but I try, and I read that post as normally the landowner sells his voucher for 2k, but if you come with us guided for 2.6k, he will give you the voucher for $95...
I have seen that voucher all fall on Craigslist. I read it as a bonus for hunting with them. A pretty cheap hunt.
I agree with Glunt that the wording is a little confusing, but I don't think there is anything illegal. I read it as Hoot did to mean that you can get the voucher alone, which is permission to hunt, for 2K or you can get the voucher and the guided hunt for 2.6K, plus $95. A voucher can be sold for any amount that someone will pay, or it can be given away, but it has to include access to hunt the property.
I don't know much about rifle seasons, but isn't second season over? Buyer beware.
"but the landowner will let them go for only $95 on the guided high success mule deer hunt." I may be reading this wrong but the above statement states that if you pay $95 for the voucher, then you can hunt guided. It appears that you need to pay for the guided hunt to buy it for $95. Seems to me that they are saying buy this cheap tag and we'll guide you. It no where states that you can hunt without being guided. Interesting take by all, like I said I could be interpreting this incorrectly.
Its the Land Owners tag......He can charge whatever he wants for it or give it away to a family member if that's what he wants to do.
I get that. He can do whatever he wants with it.. No a problem at all. What I'm saying is that to me it insinuates that the landowner will give the $95 dollars IF you do a guided hunt. I also do not believe that the landowner is the guide here. If the landowner wants to sell me the voucher for $95, then so be it and he is then required to let me hunt his property. That is not what is posted here. But maybe its all in the wording.
I will take another stab at this. What I'm guessing has happened here is that the the landowner has leased all hunting on his property to an outfitter and the outfitter is the designated land manager. The outfitter is probably paying a set amount for the entire season or a fee per each hunter. That would likely be the same amount for an over the counter hunter, a hunter with a limited entry tag, or a hunter on a voucher tag. If the owner and outfitter don't want anyone wandering around the property unguided then they sell the whole thing for one price, in this case $2,695. I don't think it matters how they itemize the costs, as long as the landowner get the amount he wants for each tag, and the hunter agrees to the price. I could be wrong here, but I don't know of any stipulation that says a landowner can't require someone on his property to be guided.
You have described it well. When there is an an exclusive right to use lease, and all vouchers carry a right to use the land - there is only one way for the voucher to be channeled to the public. Not only is the land locked up, but so is the voucher.
We live in a free country, this sort of activity happens. What I think we need to do is have CPW, on a large scale, start leasing private lands for public big game hunter access. We do it for lakes where the water is owned by ditch companies, we do it for small game on the eastern plains, but we don't do it for big game. Montana leases nearly 8 million acres annually for public hunter access, Wyoming leases over 3 million. Idaho with 63% of its land public, finds access so critical it leases 3 times more than Colorado. In comparison, our population demand far exceeds all 3 of our neighbors.
If you agree, write the wildlife commission and tell them to get their act together and start leasing public hunter access for big game as we are being locked out of both licenses, and land to hunt on.
Speaking of public walk in. Did anyone hunt the pilot big game walk in this year?
Grasshopper, that's not going to happen no matter how many letters you write to the commissioners. the battle is being fought for us in congress, by our elected officials for CPW to open up more state land for the public, before congress allows them to start paying to lease lands for public use. and until CPW comes up with a plan to allow more hunting in SWA, and the state land board allows public hunting. Congress is not going to allow the increases to pay for land leases.
IVL, do you mean the State Legislature? Is there an effort to have SLB property opened for hunting? I see that as a hard fight since SLB properties generate money by leasing the hunting rights. With all the budget drama, removing a revenue stream won't be easy.
Not sure what to make of your comments ivl. Swa is state wildlife area, owned by cpw and huntable today. State trust lands have nothing to do with Congress. We can get more state land access as well as private and landlocked public by vote of the parks and wildlife commissioners.
Which state lands should we prioritize? The overgrazed ones, the vertical parcels, or the ones that have public ground abutting it on all 4 sides that people hunt anyway?
I get that your trying to protect your business interest as an outfitter, it is a free country. A competitive market is good for the consumer.
8 Pointer - I think that the Big Game Access Program is still suspended.
I am sure that a program can be worked out to get more public access on public lands across this state for hunting and fishing. There are a number of landowners that would be willing to provide access for responsible hunting and fishing. Wyoming has developed a great program that has been very successful.
Grasshopper, as you know, Colorado remains as one of the few western state holdouts for allowing access to State Trust Lands. The vast majority of state trust lands are open to the public for hunting and fishing. I am not sure of the mechanisms used in states like WY, MT, UT, AZ, NM, ID, etc to allow that access, but I am sure someone could help out with looking into that and structuring something that would work for Colorado STLs.
Although Colorado Parks and Wildlife continues to cry about budget shortfalls and ask for increases in license fees across the board, there is one fact that they continue to not mention: Colorado consistently takes in more revenue than any other state for hunting license sales.
The issues with respect to budget shortfalls within CPW are not caused by lack of hunting dollars. The big issues that I have heard about in the meetings tend to revolve around required repairs to impoundments and hatcheries. Why should the lion's share of price increases fall, yet again, on the resident hunters?
I have made comments in meetings in various CPW meetings across the state with, what I believe are good common sense solutions for many of the issues. They continue to be ignored and the focus continues to be on raising fees for the hunters across the board.
I am very frustrated with CPW, the Wildlife Commission, and most of the Conservation Groups that I belong to.
Im telling you that there are state senators that are not interested in the CPW being in the real estate business. and that every proposal that they bring to increase fees to increase land holding either by lease or purchase will be shot down until they provide more access to Hunt SWA, State parks, And Yes they have even talked about the state land board allowing more public access as they aren't generating the income for the schools as one might think, there are greater funding sources now for schools MJ taxes for example. Im not protecting any interest as Im not an outfitter, not sure why your taking a shot at me like that. I am however in the ranching business and I can tell you that the CPW is a terrible neighbor, and if i managed land the way they do id be in serious trouble.
There is a biggame access program via walk-in access in the SE corner of Colorado. No, I haven't heard back from friends hunting in the SE corner yet.
IVL, I fully agree with you that CPW does not do a good job of managing their business - land, water, fish, wildlife, etc.
The biggest issue is not with their revenue generation, it is with their management of their resources...
Give them even more revenue and they will still not be financially stable because of their mismanagement.
I have no idea why the BGAP and more STL isn’t open after the massive $10+ million profit the wildlife side made last fiscal year. Money is available!
Curious to know if everyone that supported a resident fee increase earlier this year still supports it? Especially knowing the CPW (wildlife side) has $17+ million in cash laying around. That’s not counting the unspent millions in habitat stamp money they are holding on to.
Those who would oppose CPW OWNING real estate, would support CPW leasing it. In one instance, land is removed from the private sector, in the other hunters are enhancing the cash flow of an asset that remains in the private sector. Makes total sense.
I'm not taking a shot at you, your linkedin profile says you "assist in helping find outfitters to lease lands for hunting". How about you help the CPW lease lands for all hunters?? you say the CPW shouldn't do it for everyone, but then its ok for you to do for a $elect few? It is a free country, I don't hold it against you for trying to eanr a buck, but everyone should be on a level playing field, and landowners should have more choices for tenants than outfitters, and a few well heeled guys that band together to lease out the public.
As far as state trust land access expansion, when you guys can get agreement on that from the Cattlemens Association and Farm Bureau, let me know. That is what you need with a republican senate, and Democrat house.
As far as CPW as a neighbor, when is anyone ever entitled to pick your neighbors?
Well Grasshopper I certainly don't see things through the same rose colored glasses you do. and that's fine we can agree to dissagree. I deal with CPW from just about every angle, as a sportsman, land owner, contractor..... again if i managed any of my endeavors like they do I'd be in trouble. CPW dosen't want to do any of the work they want to benefit from others work. There are thousands of public lands off limits to hunters because they won't make them available, they would rather spend money, tax payers money to a farmer or a Rancher who has been a good steward of the land and a good conservationist for the wildlife to access his property because hes done a good job and nature is abundant, But state parks and state wildlife areas aren't for hunting they are for wildlife watching and hiking. and that makes sense? but i guess that the American way, the hard working always have to pay for everyone else! The Cattlemans Association and farm bureau, they don't support the name they represent, they will soon have the private land you so covet tied up in conservation easements and you still won't be able to hunt on them. they are stealing them from land owners faster than the Government can get their hands on them. JMatthew and I are in agreement they have a lot of money in surplus that can do some good, but they have bigger dreams for that money. and i say Dreams because there is no plan for the budget surplus. If there was a goal then there would be a plan, without a plan its just a dream. And what ever that Dream is They don't have enough money for it so they want to raise my license fees to help out with that dream and i'm not interested it participating in that. use what you got before you ask for more! Grasshopper there is no level playing field, and to let you know there is huge liability to a land owner to allow the public on private property, outfitters who are bonded and insured take away a lot of liability, and that's comforting to land owners. i spend countless hours cleaning up after the countless people who are entitled to use public lands, tents left behind, trash, furniture ect..... I certainly don't want to clean up my land after those people have been granted access because the CPW gave me lease Money. Its not about the money for me, Its who always is left cleaning up the mess!! and that's the hard working people that made the land the Hunting paradise you want to have access to. No I wouldn't be interested in helping CPW lease any lands cause i know their work ethic, and money dosent fix anything, hard work and sweat gets it done.
Hmmm. Both landowners and hunters were very satisfied with BGAP. I didn't hear any complaints about a mess left behind in the reports I read or additional sweat required on the part of the landowner. Access programs in Wyoming, Montana and Idaho don't list having to clean up as a dissatisfier, although they do pay to mitigate weeds, roads and more. I don't think hunters are hauling in couches and TV's with them to leave behind.
I believe satisfaction from landowners and hunters have historically been good in the pheasant walk-in program.
I do believe the public at large treats public ground like a landfill, but I don't believe those are hunters exhibiting that behavior.
Liability in the walk-in programs is covered by the state, and has not been a concern.
The land owner Voucher program is a Dumpster Fire, and since Eric Slater left as the program manager its getting worse! As a land owner I Don't participate in it, we would only be eligible to get deer tags, and i don't feel we have enough deer to support the amount of tags already allocated.surrounded by BLM, SWA, and Forrest land the PLO tags would be usless and limit the hunting experience. Unit wide tags make more since in our area, but why pay for a voucher when you can draw a tag with very little points. This is where the Greed and controversy comes in with the voucher program, because the unit wide vouchers are highly coveted, and they bring a premium. There are to many abuses to mention about the unit wide vouchers, and I believe they are a big problem. if CPW would just allocate them for PLO it would clear up a lot of problems. it has been stated to many times that the program was for the land owner to be able to hunt the land they work, and not have to wait years to draw a tag? like many other programs its abused, loosely supervised and too much grey area. hunting has changed so much over the years, now a days it seems like it brings out the worst in people. Just my 2 cents.
Satisfaction? well if it was such a great program it would still be running! Colorado is not Wyoming, or Montana or Idaho. CPW dosent work to create a bond with land owners they are not good neighbors! They approach a land owner and say hey you have a great place and we'll give you X amount of dollars for your place, if you allow public to hunt. what they don't tell you is that you are the only land owner in the unit that is in the program and you could potentially have every hunter in the unit hunting on your property. Sounds like a good deal? That exact scenario has happened on the eastern plains! when you have 40-60 hunters wanting to hunt you amazing property in a few short years all the game is shot out, now hunters are complaining that the property that CPW is leasing is crap. CPW has done nothing to recruit new land owners to get more property cause the only incentive is money. they don't have a management plan, that's property specific just a number management plan for a specific DAU. so when the game is shot out of your place they move on to the next land owner and entice them with money to allow opportunity for the public. CPW preaches "opportunity" supply and demand you want more access more tags and more opportunity! But there's no responsibility no accountability. This state is filled with opportunity, yet it still isn't enough! we've developed more seasons in the last 30 years for more opportunity, and it still isn't enough! We have big game hunting seasons from August to Jan 31st. and that still is not enough. CPW loves selling licenses and that's the bottom line! they answer the demand and it still is not enough for them or for us! cause if we don't draw what we want we can get an over the counter, or a left over, if that don't work out and we aren't successful we can get a voucher, then we can get a list B, or C, or whatever else to satisfy the greed! how many opportunities do you need? I guess whatever you are willing to pay for!
IVL - I'll nominate you for the access working group when it gets formed, all opinions matter. Of course, I'm in charge of nothing and my lab doesn't even listen to me. Merry Christmas
IVL, your $.02 is up to about $1.50 now...
I am somewhat familiar with the small game walk in access in Colorado. I know some landowners have not renewed their lease because of trash. When asked what trash they mentioned feathers, guts, wings and heads. The Corners For Conservation (C4C) came about when the small game manager asked for funds from Pheasants Forever and the Muley Fanatic Foundation (maybe others) to be matched 3 to 1 from grants. The program is-the landowner must sign up irrigation corners for 5 years. They cannot mow, graze, spray or hay it. It must be in the walk in program. It pays better than Conservation Reserve Program(CRP) plus the walk in fee. Corners average 7+ acres and are not planted with a CRP mix. No brome, wheat grass or gramma is in the mix. They have 4 warm season grasses which include Yellow Indian grass, Switch grass, a Bluestem and one other plus 11 forbes and legumes (pollinators/flowers). The first year they planted 84 corners in corn or wheat stubble. This last spring they planted more than 100 and they have a waiting list for about 100 more in 2018. These are primarily in Sedgwick, Phillips and Yuma counties although they added more this year and will be adding more in 2018. I understand that some landowners in the Haxton area would like the plantings but do not want to open it up to walk-in hunters. Sorry! There needs to be 8 or more corners in an area because the equipment has to be roaded to the area. This is fantastic cover for small game and deer. Two of the seed drills were purchased by PF and Muley Fanatics. They were shipped to the western slope last fall, I assume to plant grass and shrubs and were back this spring. There is enough cover in eastern Colorado that there is no chance that all the rooster pheasants will be killed. They just move 1/2 mile to where there is less pressure. Hail can decimate birds in some areas and it can take a couple of years to recover.One rooster can handle up to 20 hens in the spring but with that many he may became exhausted. Poor thing! The small game manager ?? was also assigned to begin the deer/pronghorn walk-in program in SE CO. I think it would be better to charge a small fee but they have chose not to. We'll see how that turns out in the next few years.