Landowner preference (voucher) proposed changes

[Oak]

Here is what we stand to lose if this bill is passed...about 8,425 deer, elk and pronghorn tags...resident and non-resident.

 

[Summitthunting]

Oak, do you know how many tags are currently Private Land Only? PLO tags are not included in the above numbers correct?

 

[Zach]

Oak,

Thanks for doing the legwork on this.

Emails sent.

+1, I'm on the road for work but sent my emails today!

 

[Oak]

Oak, do you know how many tags are currently Private Land Only? PLO tags are not included in the above numbers correct?

The only vouchers that are currently PLO are the ones drawn on PLO hunt codes. The numbers above include all hunt codes available to landowners applying in the landowner preference draw, including PLO hunt codes. In that table above, the "proposed" numbers will be split 50/50, unit-wide and PLO. Except of course all vouchers for PLO hunt codes will remain PLO.

So for example, there are currently 11,487 deer tags available in the landowner allocation, some of which are for PLO hunt codes. The proposal will add 4,797 tags to the landowner allocation, and then assign approximately 50% of the 16,284 tags to new PLO hunt codes for those units.

Did I answer your question?

 

[elk_hunter]

Mails sent!

 

[Oak]

Just a correction to what was posted above. The calendar for the Senate Ag, NR and Energy Committee has been changed, and this bill is now scheduled for NEXT week, March 7th at 1:30pm in Senate Committee Room 353. Public testimony will be heard. Keep an eye on the calendar to make sure it does not change again if you are interested in testifying. Also, if you think you might go to testify, it might be good to coordinate. Please email me if you think you will be going (voucher.proposal at gmail.com). It would be really great to have a good turnout.

 

[spook12]

........

 

[mdunc8]

Emails sent.

 

[Oak]

Here are corrected proposed voucher numbers, based on 2012 tag allocations.

Pronghorn vouchers go from 5,313 to 5,547. (Pronghorn east of I-25 is currently at 25%)

Deer vouchers go from 11,487 to 15,354.

Elk vouchers go from 4,044 to 5,416.

SB13-188 will be heard by the Senate Agriculture, Natural Resources and Energy Committee on Wednesday, March 6. Once again, contact information for the committee members is below:

Sen. Gail Schwartz (co-sponsor)
Phone: 303-866-4871
[email protected]

Sen. Greg Brophy
Phone: 303-866-6360
[email protected]

Sen. Angela Giron
Phone: 303-866-4878
[email protected]

Sen. Ted Harvey
Phone: 303-866-4881
[email protected]

Sen. Matt Jones
Phone: 303-866-5291
[email protected]

Bill sponsors not on the committee:

Sen. Lois Tochtrop
Phone: 303-866-4863
[email protected]

Rep. Ed Vigil
Phone: 303-866-2916
[email protected]

 

[Big Fin]

Hopefully people understand what this will do to the "point creep" situation everyone complains about in Colorado. If they push this through, which I hope they don't, I hope they add two changes:

1. If you buy a landowner voucher, you give up your points.

2. If you get a unit wide landowner voucher, you must allow hunting/access on your property, the same way they do it in New Mexico.

Better would be to see it die a quick death. Thanks for all your work, Oak.

 

[PonoHunt]

Hopefully people understand what this will do to the "point creep" situation everyone complains about in Colorado. If they push this through, which I hope they don't, I hope they add two changes:

1. If you buy a landowner voucher, you give up your points.

2. If you get a unit wide landowner voucher, you must allow hunting/access on your property, the same way they do it in New Mexico.

Better would be to see it die a quick death. Thanks for all your work, Oak.

Big Fin, I may be wrong but I think #2 is already a rule. You can't transfer a LO voucher to someone and not allow them to hunt on your property. Maybe I am wrong.

 

[Big Fin]

Big Fin, I may be wrong but I think #2 is already a rule. You can't transfer a LO voucher to someone and not allow them to hunt on your property. Maybe I am wrong.

I believe in CO, you have to allow the voucher buyer to hunt your property, as you stated. In NM, all tag holders can hunt property where the landowner gets a unit-wide voucher.

 

[PonoHunt]

I believe in CO, you have to allow the voucher buyer to hunt your property, as you stated. In NM, all tag holders can hunt property where the landowner gets a unit-wide voucher.

Gotcha, I like that, would deter the LO from just brokering the tags.

 

[BuzzH]

Anyone go to this committee hearing?

If so, how did it go.

 

[Oak]

One person testified against the bill, the Colorado Coordinator for Backcountry Hunters and Anglers. Several members of the voucher committee were there to testify in favor of the bill. No follow-up questions were asked by any of the Senators, and the bill passed out of committee on a 5-0 vote.

I have not received a single email reply to any of the emails I sent out the last week, except the first one when I asked about when the committee would hear the bill. I have heard that one Senator answered a couple of emails, to say that he was voting for the bill.

 

[mdunc8]

I have not received a single email reply to any of the emails I sent out the last week

Nor have I, but I'm just a lowly nonresident.

 

[BuzzH]

Thanks Oak...I knew Tim was going to testify against it, in fact, I sent him some of your information on the tag numbers.

I didnt hear anything back from my emails either.

How is it looking in the House Committee? Better. worse, or has it already been heard?

Sounds like you got some duds for Senators on that committee.

 

[Oak]

The bill goes to Appropriations next, due to the fiscal note. There is a question about the fiscal note that I am curious about. Maybe some of you with more legislative knowledge can answer for me.

As written, the bill will result in a reduction of revenue for the state. I'm not sure how much, but it seems that something like that should be mentioned in the fiscal note? The only thing mentioned is the $51,800 needed to reprogram the draw computers.
http://www.leg.state.co.us/clics/cl...8B123187257AEE00571B65?Open&file=SB188_00.pdf

Under the current program, landowners can submit up to 6 applications in the regular draw, depending on the size of the qualifying property. Those 6 applications only require the $3 application fee. Then they may submit unlimited applications in the leftover draw, but they must pay a fee of $25 for each doe/cow application and $40 for each buck/bull app.

Under the proposed rules, landowners may qualify for up to 19 applications in the regular draw (same amount of property), and then can only apply for 3x the number of leftovers as what they were allowed in the initial draw. So all vouchers drawn from 7 to 19 will no longer have the associated fee paid to the state.

 

[Zach]

One person testified against the bill, the Colorado Coordinator for Backcountry Hunters and Anglers. Several members of the voucher committee were there to testify in favor of the bill. No follow-up questions were asked by any of the Senators, and the bill passed out of committee on a 5-0 vote.

I have not received a single email reply to any of the emails I sent out the last week, except the first one when I asked about when the committee would hear the bill. I have heard that one Senator answered a couple of emails, to say that he was voting for the bill.

If you're referring to my exchange with Sen Brophy, it was the reaction expected. It was a couple back and forth.

While Brophy has been great on the 2A bills, this is a little disappointing.

 

[Oak]

I thought I would let everyone know that the Colorado Wildlife Federation has come out in support of this tag grab.