Dinkshooter
Well-known member
That is a good article.
Landowner preference (voucher) proposed changes
- Thread starter Oak
- Start date
Watching Colorado politics from afar, it seems to have plenty of bad wildlife and hunting bills, such as this one, but not as many as some other states.
But, once a bad bill is introduced, it seems like it is a done deal. Whoever is introducing these must understand the process very well and gets the skids greased to the highest degree, prior to launch.
I suspect a survey of resident hunters was not done with this one, or if it was, was not acknowledged. I suspect most non-resident hunters who see point creep get more problematic don't really care of this bill either. I don't.
Are there enough pressure points that can be hit to turn this bill around, when you have the Department and landowners pushing it?
I hope so and I know Oak has done an amazing job trying to get people aware of what this bill will really do to the average hunter.
From the defenses I have read when supporters are questioned about this bill, it sounds like they do addition via subtraction. I am a CPA, so I might be slow on the uptake, but that kind of funny math is usually reserved for your neighbors to the west.
Thanks for the hard work many are doing to bring this to the forefront.
But, once a bad bill is introduced, it seems like it is a done deal. Whoever is introducing these must understand the process very well and gets the skids greased to the highest degree, prior to launch.
I suspect a survey of resident hunters was not done with this one, or if it was, was not acknowledged. I suspect most non-resident hunters who see point creep get more problematic don't really care of this bill either. I don't.
Are there enough pressure points that can be hit to turn this bill around, when you have the Department and landowners pushing it?
I hope so and I know Oak has done an amazing job trying to get people aware of what this bill will really do to the average hunter.
From the defenses I have read when supporters are questioned about this bill, it sounds like they do addition via subtraction. I am a CPA, so I might be slow on the uptake, but that kind of funny math is usually reserved for your neighbors to the west.
Thanks for the hard work many are doing to bring this to the forefront.
noharleyyet
Well-known member
Very good read.
This is the letter I have been sending, feel free to modify it for your own use. Those that are more in the know, feel free to offer criticism. 
So far I have sent it to the Director of CPW, the sponsoring Senators, and the Ag/Natural Resources Committee in the House.
Dear ,
As a non-resident hunter and fisherman I would like to ask that you withdraw support for proposed bill SB13-188. This bill will reduce hunter opportunity and further privatize the wildlife held in the public trust by allowing the highest bidder to bypass the regular drawing process. I have hunted Colorado since 2004 and have been saving preference points to hunt some of the more desirable areas in the state. If this proposal goes through my wait will likely be extended by several years, this scenario would be the same for both non-resident and resident hunters that are essentially waiting their turn to hunt. Should this proposal go through as is, I would strongly consider phasing out my hunting in Colorado and moving on to Montana or Wyoming.
That said I believe there should be an equitable way for landowners to allow themselves, friends, and family to hunt their property. I also understand that this proposed bill was developed over several years with input from many stakeholders. One thing is clear though, the Public as a stakeholder was very under-represented. With this proposal, the Public essentially gives up an additional 10% of the available tags and these are generally in high demand areas. As I understand it, the reasoning behind this was that by increasing the number of landowner vouchers, it would increase landowner tolerance for greater wildlife populations on their private property. I could get behind this if the population objectives were increased and wildlife populations were allowed to increase first, but that is not the case here, this is a step in the wrong direction.
Going forward, if this bill or one similar to it is moved forward I would ask that you request the following stipulations:
1. If a hunter buys a landowner voucher, that hunter must forfeit his or her preference points.
2. If a landowner is provided with a unit wide voucher, that voucher should be valid for private lands only.
3. The percentage of tags going into the landowner only pool should not be increased.
4. If these vouchers are sold by the landowner, a majority of the proceeds should go to the CPW.
This bill seems to be cruising through the legislative process, which is concerning to me, I would ask that you please take a closer look at this potential legislation and it's negative impacts on access to the Public's wildlife resources.
Thank your taking the time to hear my concerns.
Sincerely,
So far I have sent it to the Director of CPW, the sponsoring Senators, and the Ag/Natural Resources Committee in the House.Dear ,
As a non-resident hunter and fisherman I would like to ask that you withdraw support for proposed bill SB13-188. This bill will reduce hunter opportunity and further privatize the wildlife held in the public trust by allowing the highest bidder to bypass the regular drawing process. I have hunted Colorado since 2004 and have been saving preference points to hunt some of the more desirable areas in the state. If this proposal goes through my wait will likely be extended by several years, this scenario would be the same for both non-resident and resident hunters that are essentially waiting their turn to hunt. Should this proposal go through as is, I would strongly consider phasing out my hunting in Colorado and moving on to Montana or Wyoming.
That said I believe there should be an equitable way for landowners to allow themselves, friends, and family to hunt their property. I also understand that this proposed bill was developed over several years with input from many stakeholders. One thing is clear though, the Public as a stakeholder was very under-represented. With this proposal, the Public essentially gives up an additional 10% of the available tags and these are generally in high demand areas. As I understand it, the reasoning behind this was that by increasing the number of landowner vouchers, it would increase landowner tolerance for greater wildlife populations on their private property. I could get behind this if the population objectives were increased and wildlife populations were allowed to increase first, but that is not the case here, this is a step in the wrong direction.
Going forward, if this bill or one similar to it is moved forward I would ask that you request the following stipulations:
1. If a hunter buys a landowner voucher, that hunter must forfeit his or her preference points.
2. If a landowner is provided with a unit wide voucher, that voucher should be valid for private lands only.
3. The percentage of tags going into the landowner only pool should not be increased.
4. If these vouchers are sold by the landowner, a majority of the proceeds should go to the CPW.
This bill seems to be cruising through the legislative process, which is concerning to me, I would ask that you please take a closer look at this potential legislation and it's negative impacts on access to the Public's wildlife resources.
Thank your taking the time to hear my concerns.
Sincerely,
Scott seemed to be ignoring my emails about this, so I got a bit abrasive with him. He pushed back, but also wrote that column within a week, so I thanked him, apologized, and we are friends again. 
Zach
Well-known member
2 years in the making? I'm guessing there is some "you vote for mine, I'll vote for yours" back scratching going on!! Pathetic.
Any update on this bill?
I didn't get a single damn response to the letters that I sent. As a NR that's pretty irritating, since we pretty much function as the bank for CPW...
Question: Do any of you all know what percentage of CPW is funded by NRs? I would like to follow up with the folks I sent letters to.
I didn't get a single damn response to the letters that I sent. As a NR that's pretty irritating, since we pretty much function as the bank for CPW...
Question: Do any of you all know what percentage of CPW is funded by NRs? I would like to follow up with the folks I sent letters to.
tbrass
New member
Two years in the making
Right, just because you spend 2 years making something, doesn't guarantee the product is not trash. In fact, they spent 2 years 'gathering input' then put together recommendations that supposedly reflected that input gathered. However, they never went back to the public for input those recommendations (i.e. the legislation), just assumed they got the end product right.
I'm frankly frustrated that despite Willoughby's & Peterson's articles and a fair amount of outcry online, only two people (one org) spoke-up against the bill during the House Ag committee hearing. It passed unanimously and at this point is likely a done deal.
Big money wins, average hunter loses.
Right, just because you spend 2 years making something, doesn't guarantee the product is not trash. In fact, they spent 2 years 'gathering input' then put together recommendations that supposedly reflected that input gathered. However, they never went back to the public for input those recommendations (i.e. the legislation), just assumed they got the end product right.
I'm frankly frustrated that despite Willoughby's & Peterson's articles and a fair amount of outcry online, only two people (one org) spoke-up against the bill during the House Ag committee hearing. It passed unanimously and at this point is likely a done deal.
Big money wins, average hunter loses.
The only response I received was from a admin with the CPW from the 40 plus emails I sent to the committee and board members. She basically was stating it benefits landowners that winter our wildlife. I firmly believe the merger with the Parks and DOW will reduce hunting in Colorado. The general population doesn't support hunting in Colorado. It will go the way of steel trapping, spring bear, and gun bills. Good luck guys.
http://www.leg.state.co.us/clics/cl...0B8B123187257AEE00571B65?Open&file=188_01.pdf
Looks like this one goes in the loss column. I should have burned my points this draw...
Looks like this one goes in the loss column. I should have burned my points this draw...
Hit and run. Just a couple of months after he gives more vouchers to landowners, he bails for the private sector.
Director of CPW, Rick Cables, joining Vail Resorts
From his bio on the CPW website:
Cables bio
Director of CPW, Rick Cables, joining Vail Resorts
From his bio on the CPW website:
Cables bio
spook12
New member
Such is the world we live in.
This post has been up for a day and I suspect no one is surprised. It's hard to fake outrage once you understand this is just the way that things work nowadays.
BuzzH
Well-known member
No shock...get what you want out of the State/Feds to make a more lucrative opportunity for your self-interests later.
Who cares if you crap all over everyone, and everyones public resources along the way...
Just get out that checkbook and buy another landowner tag...it will all be fine. Wait another 3-10 years for a state deer or elk tag? I mean really, sportsmen should have to wait their turn. No sportsmen deserve to hunt a quality deer unit more than once or twice a lifetime anyway.
Plus, we cant expect landowners to wait the same amount of time to draw a tag as the average sportsmen...they're entitled to hunt quality areas every year. For those that dont hunt, they are entitled to sell a handful of landowner tags each year. We cant discriminate against landowners...our wildlife,and our opportunities must suffer to keep them happy.
On top of that, we cant be denying the wealthy their yearly elk, deer, goat, sheep, moose, pronghorn tags. Those guys have all worked their asses off to jump in front of everyone else in line.
Pretty tough to pretend that the NAM is not withering on the vine in CO...and a host of other states.
Also pretty tough to pretend that 99.9% of the average guys that hunt...sit back and allow it to happen.
Who cares if you crap all over everyone, and everyones public resources along the way...
Just get out that checkbook and buy another landowner tag...it will all be fine. Wait another 3-10 years for a state deer or elk tag? I mean really, sportsmen should have to wait their turn. No sportsmen deserve to hunt a quality deer unit more than once or twice a lifetime anyway.
Plus, we cant expect landowners to wait the same amount of time to draw a tag as the average sportsmen...they're entitled to hunt quality areas every year. For those that dont hunt, they are entitled to sell a handful of landowner tags each year. We cant discriminate against landowners...our wildlife,and our opportunities must suffer to keep them happy.
On top of that, we cant be denying the wealthy their yearly elk, deer, goat, sheep, moose, pronghorn tags. Those guys have all worked their asses off to jump in front of everyone else in line.
Pretty tough to pretend that the NAM is not withering on the vine in CO...and a host of other states.
Also pretty tough to pretend that 99.9% of the average guys that hunt...sit back and allow it to happen.
Last edited:
spook12
New member
Or you can just bend over. Seems to be the course chosen by most.
noharleyyet
Well-known member
Commiserate at you own peril but...you really can't win spook.
The job is officially open, just got this email.
http://agency.governmentjobs.com/colorado/default.cfm?action=viewJob&jobID=696082
