Land Owner Preference Tags

[Bait O' Eggs]

Do you think these are a good thing??

Should a land owner be given additonal tags and preference at getting tags for hunting his own property? On one hand he is feeding these animals at least part of the year. On the other hand, it makes hunting a rich mans sports. If you got the money you can buy a ranch and get tags.

Should river land owners be given additional fish tags? I think not, but it is kind of the same. Land owners dont need a fishing license, just a tag as long as they are on their own property so I guess they are getting something.

I am curious how people feel about LOP tags.

[skein]

I know a guy who feeds a lot of elk every winter, willingly and unwillingly. They bust his fences down and get into his alfalfa and chow down big time - and that's $$$ to him. In the spring, he also spreads out lots of left-over hay so the animals get a better start during late winter. He gets LOP tags and damage control tags and shares them among his family. Bottom line, it costs him money and effort, but lots of elk and deer survive the winter because of it. I'm okay with that.

I know another operation who won't let you near their place unless you have big money, even for a cow tag. They get thousands of dollars for a bull hunt and 800 to 1200 for a cow. They are in effect game ranching with my license and tag money. I put them in the same category as gillnetters - or worse.

My two cents.

Skein

I don't like it.

[Wak]

Like Skein said, there are a lot of people who use them for a good reason and deserve it, and then there are people who abuse them. Maybe the landowners should have to show some proof that the animals are doing damage.

[ 10-27-2002, 09:14 PM: Message edited by: Wak ]

[skein]

Wak,

I agree, but think any landowner could show that elk, deer, bears, pigs, whatever, were eating the feed that might otherwise go to their own animals or to market. What they need to show is are they receiving income as a direct or indirect result of those tags. If so, then they are marketing animals that are monitored, studied, and controlled by our license and tag fees. If a landowner wants to "sell" one of the "state's" (our) animals, then he ought to be required to pay the state (us) for it. And that money should be used to provide general hunting opportunities to all of us.

Now how in the hell would we figure that out?

Skein

All the land owner has to do is allow a few hunters on his property to reduce the number of animals. I don't like the idea of selling game animals (or the access to them). It is their property, but the game belongs to us all.

[TheRogue]

I haven't studied it a lot, but Colorado has a program called, I think, Ranching for Wildlife(or something similar). I believe that the landowner tags are doled out to the ranchers based on how many "regular joes" they allow onto their property to hunt for either no fee or very minimal. That, I believe, would be something to look at to see how well it's working.

I don't like the current system. There are too many ranches who are either charging big $$, or are leasing their hunting rights to big outfitters, and they're charging big $$ to hunt it(John Cole in the Monument/John Day area). What's the reason for LOP tags??

1. Allow the landowner a guaranteed tag on land that he owns...makes sense to me!!

2. A way for the landowner to help with damage control from state-owned animals by thinning the herd a bit......all for it!!

3. A way for the landowner to make money by selling tags for state-owned animals at exorbitant prices.....can't stand it!!

Ranching for Wildlife

[TheTexan]

I can see points for both sides, but if I own the land I would want to be able to hunt it. There are those that are charging big $ and making lots of money, but there are those that just want to be able to hunt their land. I have a friend that has property in Central Oregon and gets land owner tags every year, but if he were to have to apply like everyone else he may not get to hunt his own land.

Growing up in Texas, everything was private and either you own land or paid big $ to hunt. In my opinion the hunting system in Oregon is much better and fairer to the average joe!

[skein]

Outlaw,

One of the "ranchers" I'm talking about - and his ranch happens to be in the Fossil unit - is a major-league baseball player who might not even remember the last time he was there. And look at the regulations, especially the part where it says "if you don't have access to these areas, don't apply for these tags." Our license and tag fees are being spent to administer those drawings, so anyone who draws one should be allowed to hunt.

I'm in favor of LOP tags, one per family if that family is living on the land. I'm also in favor of damage control tags, but only when there is actual damage being done. And only until another method of control, i.e. increased hunting through expanded access rights, can be worked out.

I'll check on the price of one of those Fossil area bull hunts and report back. I'll bet it's close to $10,000.

Skein

[Bait O' Eggs]

I guess I will jump in and give my opinion, since I started this debate. :smile:

I know a guy who just paid a million dollars for a ranch so he could get LOP tags. He now has tags for the entire family each and every year. Something just doesnt seem right with this to me.

This guy has no interest in running the ranch, he only wants to hunt it. He has hired a manager to take care of the daily business and work on site, and it sounds like he only intends to go over and see it during hunting season. Must be nice.

I know a few other ranchers that get LOP tags on the east side (fossil unit) and they live there and their family hunts their land. They have a wheat farm and have around 300 deer eating up their profits every day. Seems like a good deal for them, and I dont really see a problem with it, and havent thought much about it in the past. Then I hear about this guy who just bought the million dollar ranch, and all of a sudden he is drawing some sweet tags because he has acreage, something doesnt seem right with it.

I know one guy on the west side that gets LOP tags for elk. He will be reading this probably and I dont want him to think I am attacking him at all. I have mixed emotions with this. He doesnt live on the property, but gets to harvest an extra LOP cow elk each year because the family has some land. Something doesnt seem fair here.

I can only purchase and kill one elk each year, I have to wrestle with the; putting meat in the freezer, waiting for a big bull, and this is the only season I get to hunt till next year..... This guy on the west side gets to harvest an easy cow for meat, and then buy his over the counter bull tag to hunt for trophies or additional meat hunting. Something just doesnt seem fair here.

I suppose if I had the opportunity to get extra tags I would be all over it, since I dont, I guess I am feeling a little left out. :blush:

Since I dont have 7 figures extra cash laying around to buy ranches and get additional hunts in Oregon, my only other option is to hunt out of state to get additional hunting in each year. For around a $1000 you can buy the tags, get to the out of state area and hunt for a week. I guess I will have to go out of state to find additional hunting experiences. If Oregon has the ability to give out tags based on land area owned, you would think that they would want to keep my money here in the state and sell me the additional tag rather than have me go out of state to spend my money.

I would like to see LOP tags done away with. Land owners can sell the right to trespass if they think they need to make money on a hunting season, those trespassing rights should be sold to those that are lucky enough to be successul in a random chance drawing each and every year.

[CAGEY]

I dont care how much they eat or how much damage the animals do. LOP tags should not be given out except to control the number of animals on the property. The land owner should not have a say who hunts or who does not hunt. Hunters should be able to register with ODFW and be placed on a list that would allow the hunter to go to a problem area and be given access to the property. ODFW could and should charge a nominal fee to pay for the program. The system now totally sucks with only the priveledged getting the tags.

[blast and cast]

The solution that Cagey is proposing does not seem fair IMHO, "The land owner should not have a say who hunts or who does not hunt. Hunters should be able to register with ODFW and be placed on a list that would allow the hunter to go to a problem area and be given access to the property." In this scenario we are penalizing anyone for owning a bunch of land. You are saying that the state has a right to tell the landowner who will hunt is land, I disagree. There are damage control hunts out there, there are emergency hunts out there and then there are LOP tags. I have mixed feelings, like most, regarding the LOP system, but many landowners close their land due to poor sportsmanship by hunters, i.e. littering, vandalizm, poaching, four wheeling, etc.

[skein]

Blast and Cast,

...many landowners close their land due to poor sportsmanship by hunters, i.e. littering, vandalizm, poaching, four wheeling, etc.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">Some do. Others have a cash cow (no pun) on their hands and milk it (ok, that was a pun) for all it's worth.

It's time to get educated. Too often we voice (or vent) our feelings that may or may not have much basis for fact, economics, or science. Let's try to check out some other states, such as Colorado (thanks, TR) and see what their program looks like. We have enough voices to get some change started if we really determine the present system is not in the best interest of the rank and file license buyer - you and me. It's worth the effort before *all* the land is locked up, and believe me, it's headed that way.

Skein

[brshooter]

You can contact ODFW and get a list of who receives the LOP tags. You would be suprised. A friend of mine requested this information a few years ago. It is a big sell-out. Several of the guides had in excess of 100 elk and deer tags. One had 230 elk tags. Word is, he pays very little for the right to get the tags.

[GutshotApe]

LOP tags are a result of legislative action, not something ODFW thought up on their own. LOP tags are intended to allow landowners to hunt their own land and, by allowing tag transfers, to benefit financially from providing wildlife food & habitat. I don't like the idea of allowing wealthy individuals to in effect "buy" otherwise hard-to-get tags that the rest of us have to draw in a lottery but that's how the legislature wanted it, I guess. :depressed:

[willametteriveroutlaw]

I paid 800 for mine and that was there most expensive hunt.. Late bull in november. There cow hunts were 400, and rifle deer went for like 500. On which the guys went 5 for 6. Even if there were no LOP tags you guys couldn't hunt on there for free anyways. So what difference does it make if they get guaranteed tags or not? I know that some places are more expensive, but if you had the money wouldn't you consider going to NM for monster bulls or alberta for a huge Whitetail? Would you be willing to wait 5-10 years years for a tag, I would be willing to bet not. Thats why ranch hunts exist. Its fine if its in someones elses back yard but not your own..

Be thankful that we have tons of public land and were not texas.

[Snapset]

Looking at this issue in the long term, I don't like what this does for the sport. Anyone paying thousands for a LOP tag is not passing the tradition down, they are not even learnig to really hunt, (Followin a guide around as he glasses tame deer and picks out the biggest one you can afford is not hunting), they are giving real hunters a negative image, and they are using money tto exclude other hunters from hunting opportunities.Many of these eastern OR properties were bought for the exclusive reason of obtaining LOP tags. In some cases, as a strictly money making proposition. Most of that land is not productive enough fora rancher to make money off of it by raising cows. Like most, I have no proble with a rancher making some money with trespass fees, but I get sick to my stomach when I see signs posted warning no hunting for the next 20 miles, and an out-of-state phone number on the bottom for a land-management company.

[Lured In]

comments withdrawn.
[img]graemlins/stupid.gif[/img]

[ 10-28-2002, 11:38 PM: Message edited by: Lured In ]

[MasterCaster]

Arent LOP tags and damage control tags two separate things? :whazzup:

Damage control is one thing, If the animals are causeing a farmer to lose money or causeing other damage to his land then I think its fine to use the system to control the numbers. Isnt there something about having to donate the animals to charity or something? :whazzup:

On the other hand LOP tags should not be based on acerage like they are but should be based on resident populations or something like that. I like the colorado idea that TheRogue brought up. It sounds like a winner to me. I dont think farmers should be making money off of hunters just because their land holds the animals.

The LOP tags should be used only for imediate family members that live on the property if the property isnt open to public hunting.

Just my .02

Jon :smile: :grin: :smile:

[ 10-28-2002, 12:18 PM: Message edited by: MasterCaster ]

[willametteriveroutlaw]

I have to dissagree w/all of you. Allowing the ranchers to make a little money for allowing people to hunt on there land is fine. Because without that what reason do they have for preserving big game populations on their land. Also with the depressed cattle prices these tags play a vital role in a ranchers income.. Most of the time these aren't titled aristocracy living in mansions charging tens of thousands of dollars to hunt. I have hunted ranch hunts in the fossil unit before and was very pleased w/the expirience. Not a ton of morons out in the woods, a decent amount of game and it didn't cost an arm and a leg. Yeah so what the rancher made a little money, he paid alot for his land. Most ranch hunts in oregon are way less than a guided or non guided hunt out of state.
I also get valley lop doe tags from the farms that I hunt geese on, and these are free.

[RichH]

I don't know if anyone has noticed but nowhere in the life rule book does it say life will be fair. People with $$ will always have more than people that don't. To live otherwise would be communism. Aint' America great? :tongue: :tongue:

[SHLEPROCK]

I have to agree with snapset. Where will this all end if every private land owner sees there is a buck to be made and they all take their Fair quota of tags for resale? What if the timber companies also started doing this?

[Dan Christopher]

i agree with the tags but i think they sould be for doe and cow only.not to kill the big bulls in the herd and then push the rest off there land.i see this every year.

[Jellyhead]

Well, I'll give my .02 on this, for what it's worth.

If I were a rancher and had 1000's of acres I would want to manage them for hunting with whatever legal method I chose. If it meant granting access to the public on a limited basis, so be it. If I wanted to have an outfitter lease my land and control the hunting, so be it.

But, I'm not a rancher. I don't have 1000's of acres. But, I still have options. If you do your homework, and look hard enough, great public hunting is to be had. East and West.

I choose not to go the private land, pay to hunt way. That is my choice. I get more satisfaction from harvesting game because of the hard work I put into scouting and reading maps and foot work I do in the off season. When I am sucessful, I feel great, and don't feel like anyone handed me the experience.

I know that one day hunting on the west side of the cascades will be fee based. It has been happening in the south for years. I don't blame the timber companies for doing it. They know who is on they're land, and the people leasing it patrol it for them. It's a win-win situation for the big land owners.

It will get harder and harder to find decent public hunting spots as the years go on. I refuse to give in to the pay to play mentality, and will continue to work harder to harvest animals on public land.

I say let the private land owners do what is legal. Just think of it as you're home owners association telling you what color you have to paint your house or how many cars you can have parked in the driveway. They don't like "city slickers" telling them what to do, as much as we would like an association telling us what to do with our little city lot.

Like RichH said "life isn't fair". If I wanted to marry a rich rancher's daughter or work my a$$ off, I could own a mega-ranch and get all the LOP tags I wanted. But, I chose not to, so I work hard to earn my animals.

Aaron

[CAGEY]

blast and cast

All i am rally saying is that i think if there is a overabundance of animals on someones land then let the hunting system deal with it. A mans land is his and he should have a say what happens to it. The animals belong to all of us and we should have a say regarding how they are delt with. If the land owner has damage then let the hunters help him take care of the problem. The hunters would still have to contact the owner even if they did have a tag for that piece of property.

And yes i also agree that some hunters make a mess and leave gates open. They are the real A..H.... that screw up a lot of things not only a farmers property.

Look at brs******* post, now you tell me that this is what was intended as a land owner tag. To me a land owner tag is a tag that is issued to the owner so he can always hunt on his own land. That sure as hell is not what is going on is it???????

[willametteriveroutlaw]

Outfitters and guides get a share of the liscenses w/out lop tags from what I understand. I would be these are some of the numbers BRshooter is talking about?


Outfitters and Guides Nonresident Tag Allocation

(1) Eligibility: Outfitters and Guides must be registered pursuant to ORS 704 prior to making application for big game tags described herein.

(2) The nonresident tags allocated shall be based on one half the nonresident tags drawn in the previous year from the standard first drawing determined by hunt number for series 100, 200, 600 and 800 as described in OAR 635-060-005 and 635-068-0000 through 635-071-0000.

(a) Prior to November 1 of each year, the department shall publish a list of tags available for allocation based on nonresident tags drawn in the annual June drawing.

(b) In the event of new hunts, no Outfitter and Guide tags will be allocated for that year for those hunts, except for unit wide hunts that are split will have tags reapportioned for the new hunts.

(c) All tags allocated shall be considered nonresident for the purposes of OAR 635-060-0030(2).

(d) The Commission may revoke or refuse to issue all or any portion of the permits based upon a commission finding of an emergency situation or for a biological need. In the event of a tag number reduction of 50% or more for the current hunt year, Outfitter and Guide tags will be reduced proportionately to the overall tag reduction. Tags will be reallocated based on the application draw number.

(e) For the purposes of these rules, "emergency situation or biological needs" is defined as a situation in which harvest mortality above a prescribed level would significantly jeopardize the department's ability to meet sex ratio or population management objectives for a wildlife management unit or subunit.

[TheRogue]

My best friend recently got back from "tagging along" on a ranch hunt out of Monument. He paid the $1500 to hunt there for several years, and now just goes along to help out, because he really enjoys it.

The person who bought the 5500 acres bought it for one purpose only.....elk hunting. They have no cattle, no crops, nothing. Every other year they used to till up the fields on the bottom and plant wheat and alfalfa to grow up wild, to draw in the elk. They quit doing this practice because, in the last big farm bill in either 98 or 2000, they were paid to NOT plant either of these crops (market stability).

It is not uncommon for my buddy to see 400 elk in one day on this ranch. The only reason you wouldn't kill a mature 5-6 pt bull during a season is if you're holding out for a B&C bull, or just can't hit the broad side of the barn.

The majority of the surrounding ranches are owned and managed in the exact same way. A sidenote to this is that there is 4000+ acres of BLM ground landlocked up behind the private grounds....you don't suppose the LOP tags get used there illegally every now and then, do you??

Yes, there are many family ranches left east of the Cascades. WITHOUT a doubt, these people and their relatives/friends should be able to hunt their own ground!! But how to reconcile that with those big $$ operations that do NOTHING but harvest state-owned and managed elk?? I don't know, as I've said before, I like the Colorado approach as something to look at.

TR

[RJ]

anyone have info on the monster bull that was taken near Finley Refuge on a LOP/DCT tag .I was told it could be a potential new world record,from the reports i recieved this is a perfect example of working the system.The state allows a landowner to exchange half his allotted antlerless tags for a bull tag for doing this he must allow public hunting on his land for that year,this all fine and dandy but who's to say the land supports elk during a general elk season,this Bull was taken by legal means in the eyes of the state,but what it really boils down to is Greed,there is no doubt in my mind this bull has been watched for several years as he grew to record potential and at the first legal opportunity he was culled from his herd in the month of august ,seems like a poor way to manage a state owned animal .RJ

[Crayfin]

Rogue,

I just got back from guiding on that ranch that I think your talking about that has the 4000 acres of BLM land in the middle of it. Yes, it is landlocked and yes they do hunt it but an outfitter can still get permits to run hunters on public land. They just have to go through the proper channels. There was a couple of guys a few years ago that flew a helicopter in there though and they did shoot some fairly nice bulls. Anyway just wanted to clear the air on that issue.

LOP tags can and do indeed get abused there is no doubt about that. I know the hunter that I guided was a total novice and had no idea how to hunt elk-period! He ended up shooting a nice 5x5 but he looked at over 17 bulls in the 2 1/2 days I was there and finally shot one when I left. He drew the tag to hunt there but there was indeed an LOP tag he could have used if he had not drawn. I have mixed emotions on this issue-it is almost a case by case thing. I have known of farmers on this side of the mountain that have just shot deer and piled them up! They never used any of the meat. I would rather at least see someone eat it! i think the ranching for wildlife thing would be a good thing to look at as well, but I know they can restrict you to certain parts of the ranch and certain times to be allowed to hunt as well, so there is still some work to be done with this system. There will never be a perfect system.

My .02

Todd

[blackdog]

I agree with The Rogue in respect to somehow allowing the public some access to "their" wildlife that is on the private land. As long as the landowners are allowed to make $$$ on public resources, the public should also have some availability. I know that Utah (Cooperative Wildlife Management Units) and Colorado (Ranching for Wildlife) both have these types of systems in place.

The following was taken from Utah's fish and game website on their CWMU program:

Cooperative Wildlife Management Units (CWMUs) are hunt areas consisting of mostly private lands that have been authorized for the specific purpose of managing big game animals. The CWMU program is an effort to recognize the contribution made by private landowners in providing big game habitat on their private range lands. In return, a number of public hunters are allowed to hunt on these lands.

Some public land is included on a few of the CWMUs for the following reasons: (a) isolated tracts of land, or (b) for better management such as definite boundary identification. When public lands have been included, the landowner/operator must provide additional hunting opportunities for the public.

Both private and public hunters generally enjoy higher success on CWMUs, with less hunting pressure. However, hunters should realize that success is not guaranteed. While hunters usually have a better opportunity to harvest a mature animal on CWMUs, most of these units are not managed for trophy quality animals. To better understand the type of animals available on the units, a hunter should contact the landowner/operator before applying for the hunt.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">And Colorado's: Ranching for Wildlife

Who wouldn't like to share in the abundance of Sixshooter or Les Schwab's place? Probably have about the same chance to win the lottery and buy your own place, but at least you'd have a chance.

[bigshark]

skein

I'm with you 100%. No, I'm not judging, just chuming the water a bit. Bad habit from my teaching days(dark ages). If there are sincere people with the heart to step up to the plate and try to make things better, its worth stirring the pot to get them to surface. Now lets get some suggestions on how to make the tag distributions more equitable. We aren't
writing law here at the moment, so it should be ok to think outloud. Someone think they have a better way to do it than what we have now?

[ 10-30-2002, 02:01 PM: Message edited by: bigshark ]

[PeterMac]

Wow Roy, look what you went and started.... :shocked: I must say reading this long thread sent me on a roller coaster of emotions. :whazzup: :blush: [img]graemlins/berry.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/icon_argue.gif[/img]
*******

Roy - BOE - wrote:
I know one guy on the west side that gets LOP tags for elk. He will be reading this probably and I dont want him to think I am attacking him at all. I have mixed emotions with this. He doesnt live on the property, but gets to harvest an extra LOP cow elk each year because the family has some land. Something doesnt seem fair here.

*******
No personal attack taken Roy. Let's do a show of hands here - how many of you did anything to enhance the elk/deer population in the last year, other than hunt? Well, as a small timberland owner we did plenty, making expensive sacrifices in how we managed our property to benefit the wildlife, including fish. Thinning timber instead of clearcutting, stream and riparian zone enhancement projects, road construction methods, etc.

It makes me angry that people would actually complain saying it's not fair! That we get this little benefit for all our labor! I don't feel the least bit guilty for what I have read some you post. We put one he*l of a lot into that property, and will do so well into the future.

PeterMac

[PeterMac]

Hey Bigshark, how about this for equitable - why don't you and Cagey pool your funds together, buy 40 acres, and then give the two tags you would be entitled to someone you don't even know!

PeterMac

[Coflyfisher]

Having recently moved from Colorado and being a hunter most of my life, I am famaliar with Colorado's Ranching for Wildlife program. I have been on several hunts antelope hunts where I was able to hunt on property that would have been unatainable if it had not been for this program. It benifits both parties, the rancher has some sort of say in how many people can hunt his/her property and the hunter benifits from hunting land that isn't over loaded with hunters.

My 2 cents on the subject is if someone can afford to buy 1 million $$$ worth of property for the sole purpose of hunting it, then so be it. The way I see it, if it is something you are passionate about, you will find a way to fulfill that passion.

Check out www.wildlife.state.co.us/ranching/ranching.asp for more info on Colorado's ranching for wildlife program.

[skein]

PeterMac,

Good to have you on board. We need your side of the discussion.

In my first post (the second post in this thread) I outlined a scenario such as yours. I don't think any of us take issue with that. Animals don't care who's land it is, they still bust fences, eat hay, and make babies.

We're not trying to make a raid on your property, or take away a right that you have earned. We're just looking ahead and hoping to preserve the right - and ability - to hunt in the future. I think we're in a position to make it better for everyone.

Help keep us from going tooooo far one way or the other.

Skein

[TheRogue]

I don't think I've heard much "whining" about it being "unfair". Most of what I see is many people concerned about landowners selling their LOP tags to hunt STATE-OWNED elk!!

We should have little to say about what happens on private land. Government has intruded way too much in too many areas.

HOWEVER, we should have a lot to say about what goes on with OUR wildlife. If they're causing damage, let's reduce the population. Give out as many cow tags as necessary. Populations are NOT controlled by harvesting trophy bull elk.

Generally what I hear is that you're not being charged to kill an animal, nothing extra for the tag, etc. You're being charged for the trespass fee, the right to walk upon the ground. Hoooeeey...that's just a play on words, so it doesn't sound like what it really is.

I always manage to procrastinate my way out of attending the monthly OHA meetings in McMinnville...it's high time I start attending!!

TR

[bigshark]

PeterMac

So your mad at some of the posts. As a small timberland owner your happy with the way things are with land owner tags. Thats your your stand and I for one respect it. That said, why do you get mad? Why can't you voice your opinion and make your points of contributing to the welfare of the animals without the dribble? By dribble I mean specifically the assumption you make about no one else doing anything but hunting. The dollars spent for taxation on real property that happens to support wildlife is not your burden
alone among members of this board. I can personally guarantee you that is a fact. Now shall I make an assumption that there might not be any better way to determine who and the number of tags shall be handed out? I'm not ready to do that. I'm sorry if this sounds confrontational, it is not meant to be. Your imput is as important as anyones and maybe more than some. To me the question is: What's a better way of doing it? Or is there one?

[ 10-30-2002, 09:26 PM: Message edited by: bigshark ]

[bigshark]

Seems to me that this thread is turning into a discussion of whats fair and what isn't. Well, if you think life is fair your in for a hell of a surprise. Sure there are examples of what seems ok on either side of this fence. It might be that we can pick apart most any stand. Shame on that guy who won lifes lottery and had the gene pool to make it to being a big league ball player. Shame on you who have a good enough job to save the bucks to go hunting out of state on one of those high priced tags etc. For some, the out of state tag is just as far out of his reach as becoming a millionair ball player.........who was dumb enough in your family to suggest life if fair. Be grateful for what you have, however humble you think it is. That farmer you think is getting a better chance at YOUR animals may not be as lucky as you think. If the truth were known there may be a lot of them who would rather have all their land productive and get rid of the habitat. Then we could just hunt the national forest lands..........if the politicians don't get all the pref tags. It's a good topic and maybe the tag system could be better. It's just that no one has stepped forward with
the plan.

[skein]

I think you're right, Bigshark, in that nobody has stepped forward with a plan. But I think you misjudge us if you think we're just whining about life not being fair. It's not so much a question of fairness as it is a question of right and wrong. We think maybe the LOP/DC system has gone awry, and maybe it's time to pull it back into line or even change it. That's the beauty of living in this great country; we not only get to express ourselves, we can effect a change.

Colorado has some enviable strategies for handling both access and overpopulation. I, for one, want to look deeper into their setup. I suspect there are other states that also do a good, i.e. fair and equitable, job of managing access. It is through a thread like this that ideas and information come out - from both sides of the coin.

Let's keep it up, and see if we can't be a catalyst for something better.

Skein

[CAGEY]

Skein, i like your idea. Are you going to continue to check out some of the area's in regards to how they manage their tags. Think there are enough of us that maybe we could make a difference.

It is also very nice to see this many different opinions and no one has gotten rowdy or stupid with their remarks.

[SHLEPROCK]

Peter Mac (or anyone that has lop tags) I was told by a person that applied for lop tags a few years ago that for a person to get the tags they could not post no trespassing signs on that property and had to allow others to hunt your property. Is that true?

[PeterMac]

No, not true.

PeterMac