Landowner preference (voucher) proposed changes

[Jwill]

HOUSE COMMITTEE

Details for Agriculture, Livestock, & Natural Resources

13 Members
Representative Fischer, Chairman; D-Consulting Engineer, Cap: 303-866-2917 E-mail: [email protected]
Representative Vigil, Vice-Chairman; D-Small Business Owner, Cap: 303-866-2916 E-mail: [email protected]
Buck, R-Event Planning, Cap: 303-866-2907 E-mail: [email protected]
Coram, R-Rancher/Mining, Cap: 303-866-2955 E-mail: [email protected]
Garcia, D-Educator, Cap: 303-866-2968 E-mail: [email protected]
Lebsock, D-Legislator, Cap: 303-866-2931 E-mail: [email protected]
McLachlan, D-Lawyer, Cap: 303-866-2914 E-mail: [email protected]
McNulty, R-Attorney, Cap: 303-866-2936
Mitsch Bush,D-Retired College Professor, Cap: 303-866-2923 E-mail: [email protected]
Rankin, R, Cap: 303-866-2949 E-mail: [email protected]
Rosenthal, D-Teacher, Cap: 303-866-2910 E-mail: [email protected]
Saine,R-Sales Director, Cap: 303-866-2906 E-mail: [email protected]
Sonnenberg, R-Farmer/Rancher, Cap: 303-866-3706 E-mail: [email protected]

 

[tbrass]

Voucher Hearing

Oak - thanks for getting the word out on this.

If you contact committee, express your concerns, but please also ask for improvements to the bill by:
1) Capping vouchers at the current level
2) Prohibiting use of vouchers on public land
3) Prohibiting the sale of tags

If we could get any of these amendments included, it would be a huge win

 

[putm2sleep]

Printed this out and making calls today. THANKS OAK!!!! and team of OYOA guys putting together this contact list and raising awarness!!!! However, this sucks a$$. Should be focused on getting out of the office and getting in shape, not sitting on rears, twiddling thumbs on hold trying to talk to idiots.

 

[Oak]

Oak - thanks for getting the word out on this.

If you contact committee, express your concerns, but please also ask for improvements to the bill by:
1) Capping vouchers at the current level
2) Prohibiting use of vouchers on public land
3) Prohibiting the sale of tags

If we could get any of these amendments included, it would be a huge win

Another good addition would be to require that preference points zeroed when redeeming a buck or bull voucher. It is crazy that we will be letting 20% of limited entry hunters hunt every year AND build preference points.

 

[Mudranger1]

Oak...how do you find out how many unit wide vouchers are available and how do landowners qualify/get them

 

[Oak]

Oak...how do you find out how many unit wide vouchers are available and how do landowners qualify/get them

Are you talking about under the proposed regulations?

 

[Mudranger1]

well I guess current and proposed...is it certain percentage of the total private landowner vouchers or does the landowner have to have a certain number of acres

 

[Oak]

well I guess current and proposed...is it certain percentage of the total private landowner vouchers or does the landowner have to have a certain number of acres

That's a simple question with a complicated answer.

Under the current rules, all vouchers are unitwide. Landowners qualify for them based on how many acres they own. More acres equals more applications in the drawing, up to 6 total applications. The acreage cutoffs are:

160 to 639 acres = 1 application per species
640 to 1199 acres = 2 applications per species
1200 to 2399 acres = 3 applications per species
2400 to 3999 acres = 4 applications per species
4000 to 4999 acres = 5 applications per species
5000 acres or more = 6 applications per species

Any landowner can submit as many applications as they choose to in the leftover draw, but they must pay a fee for each: $40 for buck or bull and $25 for doe or cow.

Under the proposed rules, half of all vouchers will be unitwide (10% of the total number of tags in each unit). There will be seperate hunt codes for unitwide and PLO vouchers, so landowners will have to choose which they want to apply for with their alloted applications. The new qualifying scale is:

160 to 639 acres = 1 application
640 to 1,239 acres = 1 PLO application if the property meets certain standards
1,240 or more = 1 additional application for every 600 acres, up to 19 applications total
1 additional application for each additional 600 acres owned, up to

 

[Mudranger1]

CBA facebook just posted up this link on the stance...disappointing to me

www.coloradobowhunting.org/news/2013/LO Voucher Bill.html#but

 

[Mudranger1]

wow all of them are unit wide ...I did not know that.. with the proposed regs that would actually decrease the number of hunters buying/hunting somewhere else other than the LO's property..correct? I'm just using your tag example on page 1...old 7,939 unit wide deer tags able to be sold and hunt where they want...proposed 10,736 total 5,368 unit wide tags...not siding with this bill just curious as to your thoughts on this part

 

[Oak]

wow all of them are unit wide ...I did not know that.. with the proposed regs that would actually decrease the number of hunters buying/hunting somewhere else other than the LO's property..correct? I'm just using your tag example on page 1...old 7,939 unit wide deer tags able to be sold and hunt where they want...proposed 10,736 total 5,368 unit wide tags...not siding with this bill just curious as to your thoughts on this part

I think it's not nearly enough for losing another 5% of tags. That is just about ALL sportsmen got out of this deal. In return, they got tougher draw odds and increased point creep.

Really, any "solution" which increases the landowner percentage is not a solution.

 

[Mudranger1]

have you heard anything from the house reps? what kind of response times is normal if any?

 

[Zach]

have you heard anything from the house reps? what kind of response times is normal if any?

Here is a reply from Rep. Gail Schwartz:

Zach,


Thank you for contacting my office regarding SB13-188 as your input is
critical in strengthening our democratic process and helps me to
better represent our district.

SB13-188 is a result of a two year stakeholder process in order to
address wildlife habitat on private lands, reward landowners for
providing habitat, and provide more opportunity for all hunters. The
committee of nine members represented hunters, landowners, outfitters,
and CPW managers.

The voucher program leads to more available permits by increasing
landowner tolerance for big game populations. The program encourages
owners of farms and ranches to view wildlife as an asset by providing
tangible benefits to landowners. These higher populations mean more
opportunities for public hunters across the state on public and
private lands. On the whole, public hunters benefit from larger
populations. By comparison we have more big game than we did 30 years
ago due to private land owner participation.

The bill makes several changes to the Landowner Preference program,
which is the process that allocates big game hunting licenses to
agricultural landowners through a system of transferable vouchers.
This SB188 tightens the eligibility requirements for participating
landowners. It requires that smaller properties have their
applications verified prior to enrolling, and that larger properties
are subject to audits. Existing properties, under the program, will be
grandfathered in for the first three years. Another change is that
vouchers will no longer only be based on total acreage. Instead, the
bill incorporates a proportional scale providing for one application
for every 600 acres with maximum of 11,400acres. The Division of
Colorado Parks and Wildlife will also collect data about prices paid
for vouchers to address potential concerns regarding a high-price
“market” for these vouchers. While there is currently no data that
shows people paying for vouchers, SB13-188 protects ordinary hunters
and safeguards against any misuse. With enforcement in mind, the bill
prohibits brokering of vouchers and requires a landowner to give
access to the entire parcel for which the voucher was issued. CPW has
the authority to disqualify any landowner or hunter that violates any
rule for up to five years.

Again, thank you for sharing your input regarding SB13-188 and I hope
this information will be helpful. You can use the general assembly
website to track the bill and listen to testimony when it is in
committee. Please continue to contact me with feedback, input and
questions in the future.

Link to SB-188 http://www.leg.state.co.us/clics/cl...B8B123187257AEE00571B65?Open&file=188_eng.pdf


From the office of:
Gail Schwartz, Colorado State Senator
Senate District 5
office: 303-866-4871
State Capitol Building, Room 332
Denver, CO 80203

fax: 303-866-4543
www.gailschwartz.org

 

[Oak]

Here is a reply from Rep. Gail Schwartz:

I would bet you my next paycheck that was not written by Schwartz. It was written by Ivan James or Rick Cables or Dave Chadwick. Fact. Senator Schartz doesn't have a clue what she is sponsoring...she is just doing as asked by Director Cables.

The CPW is quickly becoming a joke. I feel sorry for the DWM's in the trenches dealing with the politics of the organization these days. I'm sure it's not what they signed up for. I have no sympathy for any repercussions CPW or "the small town folks" feel from this bill or from the gun bills. I don't see those "small town folks" standing up for hunters right now. You reap what you sow (or don't).

 

[Mudranger1]

isn't that the same response that was posted up earlier?

 

[Zach]

I would bet you my next paycheck that was not written by Schwartz. It was written by Ivan James or Rick Cables or Dave Chadwick. Fact. Senator Schartz doesn't have a clue what she is sponsoring...she is just doing as asked by Director Cables

I should have said from the office of Rep Schwartz...

 

[bobmuley]

Terry,

Thanks for posting all this over here and a bump to the top.

Thank you all for your emails, calls, and support.

 

[Mudranger1]

first response I've got...pretty much says to pound sand

Dear Cliff,



While I can certainly appreciate your concerns, I do plan to support this bill as it is currently drafted. This bill has been two years in the making, and there has been a great effort made to bring all of the stakeholders together to include relevant state agencies, sportsmen and landowners to find a compromise on this issue. While I don’t necessarily think that it is a perfect solution, it is a solution that has been hammered out through compromise and I support the process and the outcome. I do think that it will ultimately lead to more permits and more opportunity for the public to hunt on public and private lands, which I fully support.



I appreciate you taking the time to contact me on this issue.



Thank you!

Jerry Sonnenberg

State Representative

 

[bobmuley]

first response I've got...pretty much says to pound sand

Dear Cliff,



While I can certainly appreciate your concerns, I do plan to support this bill as it is currently drafted. This bill has been two years in the making, and there has been a great effort made to bring all of the stakeholders together to include relevant state agencies, sportsmen and landowners to find a compromise on this issue. While I don’t necessarily think that it is a perfect solution, it is a solution that has been hammered out through compromise and I support the process and the outcome. What the heck did the state agency and landowner compromise?

I do think that it will ultimately lead to more permits and more opportunity for the public to hunt on public and private lands, which I fully support.
Thank you!

Jerry Sonnenberg

State Representative

With so many herds at or above objective levels where does Sonnenberg think the "more permits" will come from...

 

[tbrass]

Landowner Voucher

Another good article on this topic in the Denver Post:
http://www.denverpost.com/willoughb...y-landowner-voucher-bill-sb-188-raises-plenty