CO landowner tag allocations

[Zach]

Not all landowners that get them are abusing them, last year I had 9 or 10 vouchers both deer & antelope given to me and all but two Doe deer vouchers went into my shredder. The buck deer vouchers were going for $3000 online, but I was told that I just had to pay the $3.00 application fee for them.

Now if you count how much I've spent in gas & time to make all my landowner relationships, then the moneys adds up, but farmers are some of the best folks I know. Some have become good friends that I talk to year round now. They invite my family & I to come out for visits other than hunting season. Last year while deer hunting my son & I spent all day in a combine, now that was fun!

You never told me about the combine!

 

[jlmatthew]

You never told me about the combine!

I didn't send you pics? I did have the muzzy in the cab with me, but we only flushed out Doe's while picking corn. Brandon loved it and we're both looking forward to July when we get to go out a harvest winter wheat and I will be actually driving the combine. They say the whole town gets involved and its a huge picnic, I'll ask if I can bring friends if you want? Plus he's dying to take us up in his airplane

 

[SFC B]

But the resources aren't being bartered with RFW?

? RFW tags are a "bone" being thrown to the public in response to the $$$$$$$ many (if not all) of those ranches make through outfitting and selling of tags (or trepass fees in order to use those tags). If anything it is a SMALL opportunity for the public to get SOMETHING back. Especially when you consider the small number of ranches enrolled in that program. I put in for an RFW cow hunt this year and if I am lucky enough to harvest I will get the same cow for a $46 tag that the rancher is getting $1500 for through the outfitter he has running his operation.

 

[spook12]

? RFW tags are a "bone" being thrown to the public in response to the $$$$$$$ many (if not all) of those ranches make through outfitting and selling of tags (or trepass fees in order to use those tags). If anything it is a SMALL opportunity for the public to get SOMETHING back. Especially when you consider the small number of ranches enrolled in that program. I put in for an RFW cow hunt this year and if I am lucky enough to harvest I will get the same cow for a $46 tag that the rancher is getting $1500 for through the outfitter he has running his operation.

If you do a little sniffing around about what those ranches receive VS. what they ''give back''you might feel a little differently.

 

[jlmatthew]

If you do a little sniffing around about what those ranches receive VS. what they ''give back''you might feel a little differently.

Ain't that the truth

 

[SFC B]

Maybe you guys can educate. I am open to hearing this. How I understand the program is that the landowners for the ranches enrolled get the same number of LOVs as the RFW hunts. Is this correct? On the ranch I put in for last years quotas for RFW were 19 either elk and 133 cows. If those numbers correspond to similar LOVs wouldn't you be talking about the ability to sell 152 elk hunts if the market supports it? The area is not a "trophy" area but even as such isn't that a pretty large amount of money garnered from those animals? Please give me the scoop if I am missing something. I am being serious...no sarcasm intended

 

[spook12]

There's alot to not like about RFW but as a NR the one that really chaps my a$$ is that landowners can receive vouchers for public ground. Then they can stop public land hunters from legally entering and hunting that public land.
I completely support a states right to manage its wildlife, but it sucks big time when rules are put in place that allow private entities(RFW participants)to treat public land as if it were private property.
I can have a valid tag for Unit X and can hunt every square inch of public ground in that unit, except for public ground that has been tied up by RFW.

If the program has changed in the last couple years,feel free to set me straight.

 

[SFC B]

There's alot to not like about RFW but as a NR the one that really chaps my a$$ is that landowners can receive vouchers for public ground. Then they can stop public land hunters from legally entering and hunting that public land.
I completely support a states right to manage its wildlife, but it sucks big time when rules are put in place that allow private entities(RFW participants)to treat public land as if it were private property.
I can have a valid tag for Unit X and can hunt every square inch of public ground in that unit, except for public ground that has been tied up by RFW.

If the program has changed in the last couple years,feel free to set me straight.

RFW is a private land program (ie ranches) that gives public access.....http://cpw.state.co.us/thingstodo/Pages/RFW.aspx
Those tags are specifically NOT valid on public land or anywhere other than the ranch participating

 

[spook12]

RFW is a private land program (ie ranches) that gives public access.....http://cpw.state.co.us/thingstodo/Pages/RFW.aspx
Those tags are specifically NOT valid on public land or anywhere other than the ranch participating

If you want to test that theory, buy an OTC tag in one of the zones with a RFW operation and then legally access some landlocked Public ground locked up in RFW and see how that works out for you.
Like I said earlier maybe this has changed, but I know for a fact this is how it was just a couple years ago.

 

[1_pointer]

RFW is a private land program (ie ranches) that gives public access.....http://cpw.state.co.us/thingstodo/Pages/RFW.aspx
Those tags are specifically NOT valid on public land or anywhere other than the ranch participating

The issue, as played out here for Big Fin, was that some public land was enrolled into a RFW property. IIRC, he had found a good sized chunk of federal ground and planned on flying in like he's shown in MT. Even had the BLM permission to do so, but the tag was not valid on that piece of federal ground because it was within a RFW boundary. My guess is that the boundary is drawn to include all the ranches properties, which sometimes surround a piece of public land.

This is probably pretty common for areas with checkerboard ownership. It happens in Utah with the CWMU program as well.

 

[Jorgy]

The issue, as played out here for Big Fin, was that some public land was enrolled into a RFW property. IIRC, he had found a good sized chunk of federal ground and planned on flying in like he's shown in MT. Even had the BLM permission to do so, but the tag was not valid on that piece of federal ground because it was within a RFW boundary. My guess is that the boundary is drawn to include all the ranches properties, which sometimes surround a piece of public land.

This is probably pretty common for areas with checkerboard ownership. It happens in Utah with the CWMU program as well.

So first, I haven't done research on every RFW property, but I do have a decent knowledge of most of the ranches in the NW corner of Colorado. The ranch that Randy couldn't hunt does have public land enrolled that is landlocked by the ranch. I read a response to Randy from someone from DOW(I think) that summed it up pretty well, the fact being nobody ever thought someone would fly into a landlocked piece of ground making this a problem. In NW Colorado though, I do believe this is the only ranch that has any public land as part of the RFW. It is total BS, but not enough people have complained yet to get it changed.

You can look at the map here and see most ranches go around other private land, and some public land. Those holes in the map can be some good hunting places if you plan it out.

 

[Jorgy]

Here is how the "rule" reads for adding federal or state land into a RFW. From reading it, if you don't like the rule you can bitch in 2 directions. Either at the DOW for having this rule, or figure out who the Federal or State land board is and bitch at them for signing off on this.

Federal and State Lands - Ranches may include Federal land in-holdings if they are completely surrounded by the enrolled ranch lands and there is no public access to these lands by legal road or trail. Ranches may also include contiguous or in-holding State Land Board lands, not exceeding 10% of the private deeded contiguous land base of the ranch lands enrolled in RFW. Federal or State Land Board land included in the program will not be counted toward the 10,000 acre minimum. Ranches including Federal or State Land Board land must submit a letter from the Federal land manager with the application for enrollment stating that this land may be included in the RFW contract, or a copy of their SLB Recreation Lease authorizing the use of the land for RFW. Road rights-of-way’s shall not be considered to divide parcels. Corner to corner connected parcels shall not be considered contiguous.

 

[SFC B]

Here is how the "rule" reads for adding federal or state land into a RFW. From reading it, if you don't like the rule you can bitch in 2 directions. Either at the DOW for having this rule, or figure out who the Federal or State land board is and bitch at them for signing off on this.

Federal and State Lands - Ranches may include Federal land in-holdings if they are completely surrounded by the enrolled ranch lands and there is no public access to these lands by legal road or trail. Ranches may also include contiguous or in-holding State Land Board lands, not exceeding 10% of the private deeded contiguous land base of the ranch lands enrolled in RFW. Federal or State Land Board land included in the program will not be counted toward the 10,000 acre minimum. Ranches including Federal or State Land Board land must submit a letter from the Federal land manager with the application for enrollment stating that this land may be included in the RFW contract, or a copy of their SLB Recreation Lease authorizing the use of the land for RFW. Road rights-of-way’s shall not be considered to divide parcels. Corner to corner connected parcels shall not be considered contiguous.

Uggghhh....it gets even worse