A bill will be introduced in the Colorado legislature in the near future which will propose several changes to the Landowner Preference System (landowner vouchers). Ivan James of the Colorado Bowhunter's Association sat on the committee that created the recommendations, and he has created a Powerpoint presentation which outlines those proposed changes. It is posted on the CBA website at the following link. There is both a narrated PPT and one with no narration, the later being a much smaller file to download:
CBA website
After reviewing the presentation, I have several concerns with the proposal. Obviously the greatest concern is that landowner vouchers will increase 33% in the western half of the state and 66% in the eastern half. But more importantly, it seems that there was flawed logic used to justify the increases west of I-25.
Below are some notes I wrote down after watching the presentation. I hope that Colorado hunters stay engaged on this issue. When the bill is introduced, things will likely move very quickly. The bill has the full support of and is being pushed by Rick Cables, the Director of CPW. It will take an outstanding effort by sportsmen to have much chance of changing the course of this bill.
**
Proposed changes west of I-25 include increasing landowner vouchers by 33% and then making half of all vouchers PLO. I am curious how allocation of unit-wide versus PLO voucher will occur. Will there be two separate hunt codes for each hunt? If so, it would seem likely that the vast majority of applications in the initial draw will be for unit-wide vouchers, and the PLO vouchers will be drawn in the leftover draw.
Under “Other proposed changes,” it says that landowners will now be limited to 3x the leftover applications in the leftover draw as they qualify for in the regular draw. I don’t understand why they are allowed any more applications than in the initial draw? It seems to me that if a landowner qualifies for X amount of vouchers in the initial draw, then they should not be allowed to apply for and draw more than that number of vouchers. If there are more vouchers available than there are landowners with qualifying properties applying, then those voucher licenses should be returned to the regular leftover draw. This is also a strong argument against increasing the percentage of vouchers from 15% to 20%.
Another proposal says that “a landowner organization” will set up a voucher website to help landowners market their vouchers. If marketing has been such an issue in the past, I’m not sure why this hasn’t already been done. I am curious who will be footing the bill for developing and maintaining the website? It certainly should not be CPW with sportsman’s dollars.
Under “Other considerations,” it is noted that vouchers help to increase landowner tolerance for big game populations, and that it would take only a 6% increase in tolerance to offset the “cost” to sportsmen of increasing the voucher percentage. This idea is misleading at best. The greatest “tolerance” issues are with elk and pronghorn, but the vouchers are largely a DEER issue. The vast majority of elk units in the state are OTC, and therefore have no vouchers. The limited entry elk units are largely public land, where tolerance is not an issue or a limiting factor. Pronghorn are simply not a money-maker for landowners, because pronghorn are cheap and easily available in Wyoming, where quality is also better.
Deer, on the other hand, are where the money is at for landowners, because deer tags are limited statewide. Unfortunately, tolerance is largely not the issue when it comes to deer populations. The Powerpoint presentation even excludes deer in the “anticipated outcomes” section, saying “possible larger elk and pronghorn herds.” The sad fact is that the issues plaguing our deer herds in Colorado are not going to be solved by increasing the tolerance of landowners to the presence of deer. Between 2006 and 2011, CPW has decreased the mule deer herd OBJECTIVE west of I-25 from 583,870 to 511,300.
Deer tags issued west of I-25 have decreased from 99,296 in 2007 to 49,334 in 2012. Although there are a couple of isolated examples of tolerance being cited by CPW as a contributing factor to reduced objectives, the primary reasons are loss and fragmentation of habitat due to energy development and housing/urban development, and decreased quality of remaining habitat. Landowner tolerance is generally an issue created by poor habitat conditions on public land. Increasing vouchers to appease landowners is like putting a can of Fix-a-flat in a tire. It might work in the short term, but it doesn’t address the real issues. Remember that the 50% reduction in deer tags between 2007 and 2012 has also reduced vouchers by 50%. It’s no wonder landowners want a bigger slice of the pie.
Under “Anticipated outcomes,” the presentation lists “may be additional point creep.” I’m not sure where the uncertainty comes with this statement. There will undoubtedly be additional point creep if you take a greater percentage of tags from the public draw and give them to landowners, with no provision for losing preference points when a voucher is used.
These are just a handful of thoughts that came to mind after watching the presentation. I hope that all of you give it some serious thought and make your feelings known. The bill to change the landowner preference system will be introduced soon, and hunters need to engage the process early and often if you don’t like the proposal.
CBA website
After reviewing the presentation, I have several concerns with the proposal. Obviously the greatest concern is that landowner vouchers will increase 33% in the western half of the state and 66% in the eastern half. But more importantly, it seems that there was flawed logic used to justify the increases west of I-25.
Below are some notes I wrote down after watching the presentation. I hope that Colorado hunters stay engaged on this issue. When the bill is introduced, things will likely move very quickly. The bill has the full support of and is being pushed by Rick Cables, the Director of CPW. It will take an outstanding effort by sportsmen to have much chance of changing the course of this bill.
**
Proposed changes west of I-25 include increasing landowner vouchers by 33% and then making half of all vouchers PLO. I am curious how allocation of unit-wide versus PLO voucher will occur. Will there be two separate hunt codes for each hunt? If so, it would seem likely that the vast majority of applications in the initial draw will be for unit-wide vouchers, and the PLO vouchers will be drawn in the leftover draw.
Under “Other proposed changes,” it says that landowners will now be limited to 3x the leftover applications in the leftover draw as they qualify for in the regular draw. I don’t understand why they are allowed any more applications than in the initial draw? It seems to me that if a landowner qualifies for X amount of vouchers in the initial draw, then they should not be allowed to apply for and draw more than that number of vouchers. If there are more vouchers available than there are landowners with qualifying properties applying, then those voucher licenses should be returned to the regular leftover draw. This is also a strong argument against increasing the percentage of vouchers from 15% to 20%.
Another proposal says that “a landowner organization” will set up a voucher website to help landowners market their vouchers. If marketing has been such an issue in the past, I’m not sure why this hasn’t already been done. I am curious who will be footing the bill for developing and maintaining the website? It certainly should not be CPW with sportsman’s dollars.
Under “Other considerations,” it is noted that vouchers help to increase landowner tolerance for big game populations, and that it would take only a 6% increase in tolerance to offset the “cost” to sportsmen of increasing the voucher percentage. This idea is misleading at best. The greatest “tolerance” issues are with elk and pronghorn, but the vouchers are largely a DEER issue. The vast majority of elk units in the state are OTC, and therefore have no vouchers. The limited entry elk units are largely public land, where tolerance is not an issue or a limiting factor. Pronghorn are simply not a money-maker for landowners, because pronghorn are cheap and easily available in Wyoming, where quality is also better.
Deer, on the other hand, are where the money is at for landowners, because deer tags are limited statewide. Unfortunately, tolerance is largely not the issue when it comes to deer populations. The Powerpoint presentation even excludes deer in the “anticipated outcomes” section, saying “possible larger elk and pronghorn herds.” The sad fact is that the issues plaguing our deer herds in Colorado are not going to be solved by increasing the tolerance of landowners to the presence of deer. Between 2006 and 2011, CPW has decreased the mule deer herd OBJECTIVE west of I-25 from 583,870 to 511,300.
Deer tags issued west of I-25 have decreased from 99,296 in 2007 to 49,334 in 2012. Although there are a couple of isolated examples of tolerance being cited by CPW as a contributing factor to reduced objectives, the primary reasons are loss and fragmentation of habitat due to energy development and housing/urban development, and decreased quality of remaining habitat. Landowner tolerance is generally an issue created by poor habitat conditions on public land. Increasing vouchers to appease landowners is like putting a can of Fix-a-flat in a tire. It might work in the short term, but it doesn’t address the real issues. Remember that the 50% reduction in deer tags between 2007 and 2012 has also reduced vouchers by 50%. It’s no wonder landowners want a bigger slice of the pie.
Under “Anticipated outcomes,” the presentation lists “may be additional point creep.” I’m not sure where the uncertainty comes with this statement. There will undoubtedly be additional point creep if you take a greater percentage of tags from the public draw and give them to landowners, with no provision for losing preference points when a voucher is used.
These are just a handful of thoughts that came to mind after watching the presentation. I hope that all of you give it some serious thought and make your feelings known. The bill to change the landowner preference system will be introduced soon, and hunters need to engage the process early and often if you don’t like the proposal.
