another angle on deer management $$$$

[justr_86]

how about they bring back the lifetime license. 10,000 of them and 3 grand a pop. thats 30 million dollars. that goes in a trust fund that cannot be touched. however the interest can be the interest rate is 6.25% thats 187,500 per year that would go to wildlife management and habitat every year. and the lifetime license holders that have passed away their family gets fist dibbs on their license at the price they are going for at that time and that money goes into the fund.

i know that theres some angles that i'm not looking at but once you get the kinks worked out why/how would that be a bad thing. i myself woundnt hesitate to drop 3 grand on a lifetime license that covers fishing, christmas tree, and a guaranteed tag every year for the rest of my life.

my only problem would be a fair way to give everyone a chance at getting a tag is my problem.

not available for out of state hunters.

 

[NickJ1980]

$187,500 would go to wages for one biologist with 2-6 month temporaries and their fuel and maintenance costs alone. Not worth 10,000 more 2 points and spikes getting shot in my opinion.

The $30 million should go to land aquisition--not just land that could be hunted, but also for winter range. The land should be put in a trust and never returned to private ownership or natural resource development such as mining or gas wells.

That's coming from the son of a family of coal miners who's also worked for the UDWR and the CDOW in biology positions for what ever that is worth.

 

[justr_86]

not add 10000 more tags. when they decide what area they want to hunt in january during the draw. that comes out of the already numbered amount of tags. the total amount in any given area doesnt go up just less up for grabs to nonresidents and other hunters. the money goes to habitat and the well being of big game animals in utah namely the decreasing population of big mule deer bucks.

say all 10000 hunters want to hunt the southern region. the number of tags in the southern region doesnt go up ten thousand. the whatever is left over goes to the poeple without the lifetime license and is drawn for.

i know there needs to be guidelines for it but i thought the extra money would be a good thing.

and nobody in the utah state dwr dnr or any other wildlife division makes 187500 a year and the money would be for the animal habitat not salary. guzzlers fences trees seeds land. stuff like that.

 

[NickJ1980]

LAST EDITED ON Jan-04-07 AT 12:31PM (MST)[p]I understand what you were saying now. No extra tags is a good start, but that money still isn't going very far.

Who's going to build and design the guzzlers and fences and plant the trees and seeds? Someone is getting paid a salary. Even if the labor part is mostly volunteer, there is a state employee organizing it, aquiring materials, moving materials, etc. These projects don't build themselves.

As for the $187,500 let me break it down realistically:

Upper-mid level biologist yearly salary = $51,000

Temporary employee for 6 months x2 = $24,960 ($12/hr 40hr/wk, 26 wks/yr x 2 employees)

Yearly cost for 2 vehicles = $10,000 ($30,000 per vehicle kept for an average of 6 years)

Fuel for vehicle x 2 per year = $11,250 (20,000 miles a year, 8 mles/gallon $2.25/gallon times 2 vehicles)

Tires = $1000/year (8 tires times $125)

Oil change/service = $700 (7 oil changes per year at $50 each times 2 vehicles)

Other maintenance and repairs = $2000 ($1000 per vehicle, includes alignments, windshields/windows, muffler repairs, car washes, brakes, etc. This assumes that most major repairs are done under waranty).

Flatbed trailers x 2 and associated costs = $2000

Tractor costs per year = $9000 (yearly cost of tractor spread across 10 years, tires, diesel, 15W-40, hydraulic oil, maintenance).

Farm implements = $1500 yearly (disk, harrow, plow, seeder, etc).


That leaves $74450 to buy seeds, trees, posts, wire, gates or cattle guards, concrete, pipe, etc. That's not going to go very far. One project, maybe 2 per year. It's not a good cost/benefit ratio and therefore, in my opinion, it's not a good idea.

Like I said before, I think the biggest priority of the Western states in regard to providing habitat is to buy land than can be managed for habitat and save it from development. Buy it now, before it's too late, and work on enhancing the habitat as time goes by. If it doesn't happen soon it never will. Look at the area that is now Harriman, UT. Bye-bye winter range.

 

[Colville]

Um, how bout we use the real math.

10,000 tags X $3000 = 30,000,000 Ok... Fine so far.

30,000,000 x .0625 = $1,875,000/yr.

And the point about the budget is right, use the 1.9 mil to buy land. And you don't have to buy outright, 1.9 mil will make the payments on loans to buy $20,000,000 in property on 20 year notes at 6.25%. So why buy 20 mil in land with 30 mil bucks? Because at the end of the 20 years you still have 30 mil and you buy land again.

The problem of course is where do you get the money for the reduced revenue for the coming years??? This revenue came off the top line for future years what replaces it?