Colorado big game license allocation
- Thread starter Oak
- Start date
Don't forget that you can listen to the meetings live at the following link. There are some chapter 2 issues this afternoon that might be interesting.
I requested that they broadcast the subcommittee meeting at 5pm and record it to provide on the website, but they said that they could not broadcast it live. Not sure why they can broadcast the regular meeting that concludes at 4:45pm but not the subcommittee meeting starting 15 minutes later. But they did say they would record it and provide in the archive later.
http://cpw.state.co.us/aboutus/pages/commission.aspx
(bottom left of the page)
I requested that they broadcast the subcommittee meeting at 5pm and record it to provide on the website, but they said that they could not broadcast it live. Not sure why they can broadcast the regular meeting that concludes at 4:45pm but not the subcommittee meeting starting 15 minutes later. But they did say they would record it and provide in the archive later.
http://cpw.state.co.us/aboutus/pages/commission.aspx
(bottom left of the page)
The sub-committee meeting last night was attended by 4 of the 5 committee members (Horne absent), Chairman Kane, Director Broscheid, CPW staff, a handful of outfitters/landowners and a handful of sportsmen. The committee heard background information on the current CPW allocation policy and the results of implementation of that policy over the last several years. They then discussed the merits of changing the allocation system or leaving it as is. After a bit of lively discussion the public was allowed to testify.
Four members of the public testified to leave the system as is, including former Commission Chairman Tom Burke. One member of the public, former President of the Colorado Outfitters Association Chris Jurney, testified in favor of the Commission making changes to the allocation system.
The committee ultimately decided to take a recommendation back to the full Commission today to leave the allocation system as is, including no changes to the 80/20 allocation list, and look at options of creating an indexing system during the next year that would keep the number of 80/20 units similar to when the 80/20 system was initially created. There will be opportunity for public input during that process.
Four members of the public testified to leave the system as is, including former Commission Chairman Tom Burke. One member of the public, former President of the Colorado Outfitters Association Chris Jurney, testified in favor of the Commission making changes to the allocation system.
The committee ultimately decided to take a recommendation back to the full Commission today to leave the allocation system as is, including no changes to the 80/20 allocation list, and look at options of creating an indexing system during the next year that would keep the number of 80/20 units similar to when the 80/20 system was initially created. There will be opportunity for public input during that process.
HighDesertSage
Well-known member
Thanks for the updates Oak. I appreciate you keeping us informed.
Zach
Well-known member
Huh, go figure that Jurney wants the split to change. That guy has some killer leases and he's making big bucks off unsuspecting LO's.
I've got the next 2 meetings on my radar to attend. I see no scheduled meeting in October.
Thanks for attending Terry and thank you for the information and hard work on this.
sneakem
Well-known member
Still a bunch of crappola in my opinion. They should revise the hunt codes to reflect the standards that were set forth. I don't whine and cry when I go to another state that offers substantially less tags to NR's. I know its a long wait and I'm fine with their residents having first crack at them. I'm fine with paying more as a NR to hunt there. Heck, for that matter I'm fine with paying more to hunt in my own state. What I'm not fine with is losing the right to hunt in my own state and everyone else's state as well...
Still a bunch of crappola in my opinion. They should revise the hunt codes to reflect the standards that were set forth. I don't whine and cry when I go to another state that offers substantially less tags to NR's. I know its a long wait and I'm fine with their residents having first crack at them. I'm fine with paying more as a NR to hunt there. Heck, for that matter I'm fine with paying more to hunt in my own state. What I'm not fine with is losing the right to hunt in my own state and everyone else's state as well...
I agree.
Here is another article from Buchanan yesterday:
Hummer
Well-known member
I read the article in the Sentinel yesterday. I, too, want to thank Terry for keeping us informed and for attending the wildlife commission and hunter roundtable meetings.
It seems the big money ag and outfitter groups are no friend to hunters and the populist hunting tradition in this country. If outfitters are hurting, my guess is they can't generate business because what they charge doesn't reflect value for what they provide.
Oh, and Oak, when you're ready to serve on the wildlife commission let me know and I'll put in a call to the governor.
It seems the big money ag and outfitter groups are no friend to hunters and the populist hunting tradition in this country. If outfitters are hurting, my guess is they can't generate business because what they charge doesn't reflect value for what they provide.
Oh, and Oak, when you're ready to serve on the wildlife commission let me know and I'll put in a call to the governor.
Khunter
Well-known member
Terry did a great job representing sportsmen interests.
I attended and gave them an earful during publc comment about lying cheating landowners who take your money for a deer landowner voucher (which by law includes full access to the land to hunt any and every day of season) and then try every trick in the book to keep you from knowing exactly where the land is, how to access and ultimately tell you " you can't hunt it I leased it to an outfitter". Basically they want free vouchers to sell for big money, give those guys (me) the shaft, and then also lease the place to an outfitter.
I beat these frauds at their game two years in a row but it was a pain, and I had to invest my time in getting Parks and wildlife to enforce the rule and lay down the law with the landowners who wanted to defraud me and steal my cash. Basically threatened they would be banned from the progrM if they do not allow access per the rules.
The commission chair and CPW director thanked me after the meeting for bringing up lacking accountability and transparency in the landowner voucher program..one actually said it was not surprising to hear this might be common. To which I tactfully asked DO SOMETHING about ithis, as the Average Joe is getting ripped off and not raising the stink I am to protect their right to hunt the land they paid good money for permission to access along with getting a voucher for a tag.
Landowner voucher program in colorado is a dirty game, and based on my experience probably very abusive to hunters who buy the vouchers. Question: How is it not crime to sell a deer voucher for big bucks and then deny access to the land that is guaranteed in writing right on the voucher.
The system is set up to avoid accountability and transparency. That is not by accident and needs tobe fixed. Example. The state tells you they cannot tell you which parcels are tied to your voucher because of privacy considerations for the landowner. That means you have to cou t on the landowner to honestly tell you the voucher is fold cor these 5000 acres and not good for thsi other 5000 acres, etc. A loophole wide enough to make honest people want to be dishonest.
Solutions:
Provide detailed parcel location and size descriptions with every voucher sold.
Provide a map of the lands tied to each voucher
Survey the hunters who bought vouches and ASK about their experience and satisfaction.
Make the landowner and hunter sign an affadavit of some sort that says they explained the land access to the hunter during the sale. Amd include some penalty for failing to do so.
Throw the criminals who fail to follow the rules out of the program.
I attended and gave them an earful during publc comment about lying cheating landowners who take your money for a deer landowner voucher (which by law includes full access to the land to hunt any and every day of season) and then try every trick in the book to keep you from knowing exactly where the land is, how to access and ultimately tell you " you can't hunt it I leased it to an outfitter". Basically they want free vouchers to sell for big money, give those guys (me) the shaft, and then also lease the place to an outfitter.
I beat these frauds at their game two years in a row but it was a pain, and I had to invest my time in getting Parks and wildlife to enforce the rule and lay down the law with the landowners who wanted to defraud me and steal my cash. Basically threatened they would be banned from the progrM if they do not allow access per the rules.
The commission chair and CPW director thanked me after the meeting for bringing up lacking accountability and transparency in the landowner voucher program..one actually said it was not surprising to hear this might be common. To which I tactfully asked DO SOMETHING about ithis, as the Average Joe is getting ripped off and not raising the stink I am to protect their right to hunt the land they paid good money for permission to access along with getting a voucher for a tag.
Landowner voucher program in colorado is a dirty game, and based on my experience probably very abusive to hunters who buy the vouchers. Question: How is it not crime to sell a deer voucher for big bucks and then deny access to the land that is guaranteed in writing right on the voucher.
The system is set up to avoid accountability and transparency. That is not by accident and needs tobe fixed. Example. The state tells you they cannot tell you which parcels are tied to your voucher because of privacy considerations for the landowner. That means you have to cou t on the landowner to honestly tell you the voucher is fold cor these 5000 acres and not good for thsi other 5000 acres, etc. A loophole wide enough to make honest people want to be dishonest.
Solutions:
Provide detailed parcel location and size descriptions with every voucher sold.
Provide a map of the lands tied to each voucher
Survey the hunters who bought vouches and ASK about their experience and satisfaction.
Make the landowner and hunter sign an affadavit of some sort that says they explained the land access to the hunter during the sale. Amd include some penalty for failing to do so.
Throw the criminals who fail to follow the rules out of the program.
Last edited:
Khunter
Well-known member
Just warming up. I will buy a voucher next year and probably find another landowner who just thinks I have sucker written on my forehead. And a new educational opportunity will present itself.
I don't understand why the same landowner never wants to sell me a tag twice in a row after I have the game cops crawl up their azz. It is as if they don't like me and my cash anymore. Breaks my little heart.
Those solutions look doable! While not a huge fan of the CWMU program in Utah, the areas the vouchers/tags are good for is not something that is hidden. The maps of the properties where they are good are published. Me personally, I don't think that is infringing on one's privacy. Don't like the rules don't participate in the program.
