Conservation Group members & LE permits

N

nebo12000

Active Member
Messages
634
This is to all members of the conservation groups in this state-- MDF,SFW, FNAWS, RMEF UBA etc.
I believe there is a need to tell your leadership that its time to scale back the conservation auction tags (bucks and bulls) and return aprox. 50% of them back into the public LE draw pool on an every other year basis. I'm assuming that most of you could never afford $30,000 plus to get an auction tag to hunt an LE unit. You will get some kick back because of the money involved but I truly believe that it is time to allow the general hunting public to have a better chance at drawing one of those additional tags. I'm not sure if most of you know that of the 90% of the auction tag money that is earmarked for worthy wildlife enhancement projects,a portion of that is used to help pay salaries of any fulltime employees of that conservation group that may act as a "project manager". I believe that is legit project expense but its time to scale this program back and give back to the public, who in essence are the "bread and butter" and financial backbone of the Division financially. The money raised has been a financial boon for wildlife projects but its now time to give back so that the public can enjoy those fruits of those projects. The hunter who can afford high dollar hunts have ample opportunities through the CWMU program to purchase tags for high end bucks and bulls. If you agree, your conservation groups leadership needs to hear from you and hopefully they will get behind this proposal. I believe this will be good for all of us. Thanks Richard Hansen
 
When you put a $30,000 value on an animal's head you automatically increase the likely hood of it being poached.

Privet land owners charge what ever you want for access, but putting so much value on the tags them self?



All the tags should be a few hundred dollars at most.
 
So Nebo12000, where do you come up with these numbers?


I am interested to know what specific logical reason you give for slashing the auction tag numbers in half.
 
The number of tags that are awarded to conservation Groups are allotted to the ones have shown their ability to market/auction (bring in the most money). The number of tags have stayed the same pretty much over the past several years now , so I just used the 50% rather than a specific number to start with. The program has been a great success but the areas that Big Horn sheep could be transplanted now is probably close to Zero So probably don't need as much money to do transplants. Elk are abundant in the state, deer are doing better. Just think its time to give back to the hunters-- after all-- they do pay the bills for management of our wildlife. The current crop of wildlife biologists with the DWR are absolutely awesome because they manage wildlife for hunters and them having a better hunting experience. None of the "its good enough" attitude. They truly look for ways to increase wildlife populations and quality for all of us.
 
Nebo,

Glad to see what you feel is what many of us have felt for years! Thank YOU! Are you still a member of the central RAC?

I will be sending my emails to the different groups and I WILL SHOW UP TO WHAT EVER RAC I NEED, when they talk about this.

Lets get the ball rolling.

I have said for many years, that if we decreased the # of tags by at least 1/2, that would increase the value of the tags they are auctioning off. I have a cousin who said that if they dont get the tag that they went for, they will go to the next auction and get another. They know there are way too many tags, and just pick and chose your banquet until they find the right one.
 
"deer are doing better"

If this statement is true then logic would suggest two responses. First keep promoting an auction subsidized system. Second, increase BOTH draw tags and auction tags since the population has improved.

"Just think its time to give back to the hunters"

Next you say this. This brings three questions. First, why is it time to give back? Again this needs logical debate. That means more than "because we want". Second, the auction tag system gives to hunters. That's right. All those people buying tags, ARE HUNTERS. Last, why do we logically need to "give" tags away? What says we need to be "giving" state owned property away?


I have been here for years now. I have seen the issues with these tags. So far no one has introduced any argument to show me why the state should quit auctioning less than %1 of their big game tags. It's OK to have an emotional want. But people shouldn't base fiscal decisions over other people's "wants".
 
I know I am going to regret this but...

Tri,

I agree with your statement "why do we logically need to "give" tags away? What says we need to be "giving" state owned property away?"

Given that I agree with your statement...Utah should immediately stop the "giving" away tags. No more welfare to the conservation groups. Make them self sufficient and not rely on state sponsored welfare. No more tag "give" away! I couldn't agree more.
 
Tri,
I assume when you say "less than 1% the big game tags" you are referring to all Big Game tags. (LE and General). just to throw out #. Henry Mtn... approx (25) rifle draw tags, (10) archery and (10) Muzz tags. Lets call it (50) draw tags. How many are auctioned each year? I know it is more, but lets say there are (5) tags auctioned off. That is 10% more tags that could be in the draw pool. Maybe my logic is way off, but you put 10% more tags back in the draw pool for all LE hunts and people might actually have a chance at drawing a tag in this lifetime. Am I wrong??
 
Utah400,

No tags are "given" to the Conservation orgs. All they are is a distribution model. I have said before I don't have a problem with the DWR auctioning the tags themselves, but at this point they feel that using the conservation orgs as a distribution service is more beneficial both fiscally and politically.

I don't mind good constructive conversation Utah400 but lets stick with the truth and not spin it.
 
Openingday,

That's right. I am talking about all big game tags. If you want this to be a discussion about all hunting then you need to include all tags. I think you are closer to being honest than most and you are pointing out this is a discussion and conflict over trophy hunting. Most people don't want to admit that but that is the truth. This isn't an argument about deer, or hunting, IT'S ABOUT TROPHY HUNTING. Most of these guys don't want to admit it because it gets to the root of this discussion and that is GREED. In a democratic republic based on a capitalist economy when we start fighting over items that the demand is bolstered by greed, money will always prevail. THAT MY FRIENDS, like it or not, IS A FACT.
 
Tri,
I understand that all tags need to be included, but in this conversation, and that of the conservation tags, I dont believe they are auctioning any general season tags.. Are they? This conversation and all that go along with this subject are completely about the LE tags. I dont know if greed is the proper term. I do agree that it is totally about Trophy hunting. That is what the LE program offers and what people wait many many years to participate in. I play golf. Every week in the Men's league here at the county course. If there was a program where I could build points for a chance to play Pebble Beach when my # was called. You bet I would participate. Sure, you can pay the high $$ green fee and go play every year if that suits you. For the majority, that is not feasable. We stand in line and wait for our turn in the draw. Yes, for the chance to hunt where trophy animals live. I know I know, they live throughout the State in many General units. People work hard and take trophies off general units every year. Tip of the cap to them. They earn it. The majority however, want the "easy" chance at that trophy. Hence the LE program. Back to the Henry's. How can one argue that if the 10% of tags I mentioned earlier go back in the draw pool, that more people waiting in line will get their chance? Faster too I would imagine. Again, Am I wrong??
 
Tri,

These tags are given to the conservation groups. No spin involved, that is a fact. You claim that taking the away from them would be "giving" away a public resource. You said we should not "give" tags away. For clarification...Are you only good with the state giving away a public resource to conservation organization or do you believe a state should not be "giving" anybody a public owned resource? Should a public resource be given (welfare) to support a private entirety? Again, there is no spin just simple straight forward questions.

I have long passed trying to have a logical conversation with you and know better than to try and have a civil debate. I am simply trying to figure out why you don't consider it "giving" when the tags go to conservation org but it is "giving" when they go to the public?
 
"How can one argue that if the 10% of tags I mentioned earlier go back in the draw pool, that more people waiting in line will get their chance? Faster too I would imagine. Again, Am I wrong??"

I am not arguing against that math. What I am saying is why LOGICALLY do those people need more chances? The fact is there is no specific logical answer. The only answer is people who don't want to buy tags for what they are actually worth WANT more chances at undervalued tags. It is nothing more than an argument of WANTS. They don't need the tags for meat. The people in line aren't going to actually cover the deficit of money lost by changing those tags to draw. Cancer won't be cured by doing this. It is simply two groups of people wanting two different distribution models of the same asset, and right now one of those models brings more net dollars to the state than the other.

If you know of a logical reason the state should alter the model for taking tags away from on model and placing them in a different model I am all ears.
 
LAST EDITED ON Aug-25-17 AT 03:43PM (MST)[p]So if I buy one of those conservation tags it is issued by SFW, or RMEF, or whoever??????? No. it isn't. The tag is printed and issued by the state of UTAH and I still have to pay the state of UTAH for it. Period. That is the truth. No tag is "given" to conservation orgs. You may not like that it is that way but there is no need to spin it.

As for the use of the word "giving", THAT WAS THE OP's WORDS not mine. Please go back and read before you get your panties in a twist. Don't be so anxious to be angry at me, Utah400.
 
The almighty Dollar Bill. It always seem to come right back around to it. I am not educated that deep, but "IF" the State Nets more dollar bills from the Conservation Groups auctioning off these tags, its a no-brainer why they do it. From what I read, its the people in these conservation groups that are getting rich from it, that has peoples hair standing up. My belief is they have every right to be upset. These debates/arguments have gone on for years. My thought is there will never be a Win/Win solution. The majority (people in line) want more tags in the draw. The $$ holders (People at the tables with a number at the auction) want more tags at the auction. You are right Tri, Its all about WANT. Unfortunately, that is what the Hunting industry is for most. A WANT. I dont NEED to hunt. I have a grocery store down the street. I WANT to hunt because I love it just like you and the rest of the people on this site. And there is nothing wrong with loving the antlers as much as the meat. Again, The almighty Dollar Bill is the driving force in this game we love so much and unfortunately, in our lifetimes, it always will be.
 
Tri,

You wrote: "What says we need to be "giving" state owned property away?"

Straight forward question, is it ginging away state owned property if the tags are put back into the draw?

You also wrote: No tags are "given" to the Conservation orgs. All they are is a distribution model. I have said before I don't have a problem with the DWR auctioning the tags themselves, but at this point they feel that using the conservation orgs as a distribution service is more beneficial both fiscally and politically."

Next question: If the state decides to go with a different distribution model that utilizes a public draw because of financial and political reasons, then what is your concern? It's simply an alternative distribution model right?

You then wrote: "f you know of a logical reason the state should alter the model for taking tags away from on model and placing them in a different model I am all ears."

Final question: if the people in the state (the owners of the resource) decide to change the model of their resource management practices, do you have a problem with the state changing the model?

Any chance you will answer a couple of questions?
 
"The majority (people in line) want more tags in the draw. The $$ holders (People at the tables with a number at the auction) want more tags at the auction."


This is why I told the OP of this thread there should be more tags for both. He proclaimed the system is working and sheep, elk, and deer numbers have climbed. So shouldn't tags in both allocation models be climbing also????

As for the "almighty dollar" don't condemn it. It got me, AND YOU, this far. :D
 
Nebo-

I agree with you 100%. Thank you for taking a look at this issue and having the courage to change your position. As you know, many of us have expressed concern regarding the number of high $ tags for the last several years. Tthe DWR and the conservation groups have attempted to minimize and dismiss our concerns but it will be more difficult for them to dismiss your concerns given your long-time involvement with the RACS and the connservation groups. I will be very interested to see if any of the conservation groups support your proposal. Let me know if you can get this on the agenda for an upcoming RAC or Board Meeting and I will be there to support you. I am happy to help in other ways if needed.

Thank you for your efforts.

-Hawkeye-
 
"Straight forward question, is it ginging away state owned property if the tags are put back into the draw?"

I honestly don't know what this question is. Maybe re-write it and I can do my best to answer it.

" If the state decides to go with a different distribution model that utilizes a public draw because of financial and political reasons, then what is your concern? It's simply an alternative distribution model right?"

If they can do it as fiscally efficient or more fiscally efficient than the other model, I DON'T CARE. But they haven't come close yet.

" if the people in the state (the owners of the resource) decide to change the model of their resource management practices, do you have a problem with the state changing the model?"

I have answered this multiple times. Again slow down and read what I write instead of getting emotional. No I do not a problem with that. Do you understand that "owners of the resource" decided to go with this distribution model we are discussing????
You need to understand that there are millions of resource owners. And the state has devised a plan to start catering to a multitude of different opinions regarding the distribution of all of their resource. That means they have decided that since there are many different wants there can be many different distribution models. If you ask me, that is a lot better than catering to one single group who thinks if they are a majority everything has to be exactly as they see fit and they are the ONLY "owners of the resource"

Utah400, it is high time you accept all those people you disagree with have a place at the table just like you do. Quit trying to force people out just for your own greed.
 
"Any chance you will answer a couple of questions?"

There is no chance in hell you can get Pudge to answer any question that makes him look the fool he is.

I like how Pudge whines about people spinning facts around when he continues to spin his less than 1% of the tags BS on this subject. Half truths and lies are Pudge's only argument.
 
Straight up question for all on here.

Have LE tags for all species increased in the draw since the conservation tags began?
 
Tri,

My first question is simple. Do you believe putting the tags back into the draw is tantamount to giving the tags away?

Now, you had said "I have said before I don't have a problem with the DWR auctioning the tags themselves, but at this point they feel that using the conservation orgs as a distribution service is more beneficial both fiscally and politically."

Yet in your response to me you only address the financial aspect. Why do you chose to ignore the political aspect when you are the one who originally brought it up. If Utah decides to change their distribution model for financial or political reasons...so be it. Neither you or I really have a say as to what that state does with its resources. Both of us are non-residents.

As far as tag numbers....some tags have gone up but total tag numbers have gone down. For example, deer tags histrically had been statewide and unlimited. There were no LE units. Now there are fewer deer tags sold.

The total number of available tags are not a direct reflection of the conservation tag program. If you would like to attribute the available tag numbers of elk and sheep to the conservation then logically you will have to attribute the loss of deer tag numbers avaible to the same cause.

Enough playing in the mud.

Nebo, as a nonresident, I support your idea and believe its long overdue.
 
" Do you believe putting the tags back into the draw is tantamount to giving the tags away?"

I believe the all drawn tags are so undervalued that it is almost like giving them away. The OP apparently thinks the same. Like I said "giving" was his word.

"Why do you chose to ignore the political aspect when you are the one who originally brought it up. "

I don't ignore it. How do you logically say I ignore something I mentioned???? There is no need to address it because the draw option can't even make it past the fiscal argument. If you want to dive into the politics go right ahead.

"The total number of available tags are not a direct reflection of the conservation tag program."

I never said they were. What I am trying to show you is there is a person, the OP, who apparently you don't read his posts, saying elk sheep and deer have gotten better. Yet many of yall claim there has been no increase in the draws for these species. Doesn't that mean that the problem you have isn't with the distribution methods of these tags but really the people managing your harvest models????? Now I have answered all of your questions except for the one smartass one. Now I would like you to answer my last question.
 
LAST EDITED ON Aug-25-17 AT 07:13PM (MST)[p]Tri, your last question was about tag numbers and I answered that one .

The last question to me was about you believing that Utah chose the tag distrabution model. To answer that one, I lived in Utah for a long time and dont believe there was ever a vote on the current tag distribution model. It more or less morphed into existance. I dont remember the state choosing it rather they let it get formed by a few. I understand that you believe the people of Utah choose this distribution system. This thread is about a member of the RAC (that was specifically designed to help deal with wildlife issues) who believes that the issue needs to be reconsidered. IMO it is time for the people of Utah to decide what model they actually want. It is clear to me that you don't believe the people should not reconsider.

Hope that answers your questions but not sure which last question you wanted answer.
 
LAST EDITED ON Aug-27-17 AT 07:28PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Aug-27-17 AT 07:22?PM (MST)

Nebo....

I think this idea is overdue and I would support this idea. Even if it is temporary (for a few years) to see how the auctioning is affected. The reality is this:

*The number of Auctioned tags have increased significantly since the expo started. (What started as a PDF list that was a couple pages has turned into like 6 pages now) I had counted the number of them for each year before but can't remember the actual numbers.
*tag numbers in regards to specific species have decreased in the draw yet are still auctioned. (Moose, Sheep, etc.)
*Point creep is real and a LE tag to most now days is and will continue to be a once-in-a-lifetime hunt.

I had heard this idea before. I can't remember who's idea it was but I think it should be tried. I'm curious to see how or even if the money generated in those auctions would be affected. And in that process, those who have been waiting in line for many years, could have a slightly better chance to move through the line a little quicker or have better odds to.

Many would like to see this idea be presented to the RACS and be discussed in the board meeting with the opportunity to be heard from the public.

If the UTDWR is willing to create new LE hunts such as the late season muzzleloader hunts on GS units to help point creep, I don't know why they wouldn't be open to this idea.

As far as TRI's responses, he has made it clear that he has an opinion which is fine. But then starts asking questions in regards to tag numbers and such which shows he has done little to no research on this matter to really have any informal view. But with him being a nonresident, I'm not surprised he hasn't done the research.



"Wildlife and its habitat cannot speak. So
we must and we will."
Theadore Roosevelt
 
One thing that I became concerned about was that when the division cut LE tags in certain units because of not meeting Harvest age Objectives over a 3 year period ( which I applaud them for doing), the auctions tags (conservation tags) for that particular unit were not cut. So that essentially meant that those that could afford it still had high dollar auction tags available but the general LE applicant had less chance to draw. Believe me there are awesome opportunities for high dollar/high end bucks-bulls tags on many CWMU units. That opportunity hasn't been affected.
Tri-- you always seem to want to wander into philosophical territory that in many ways doesn't have anything to do with the point of the proposal. I'm not sure if I could deal with you on a committee-- it seems we would end up on some philosophical item that has nothing to do with the actual point of the proposal. (I can hardly wait for your spill on this)
 
So what is it going to take to get this listed as an agenda item on the wildlife board meeting? Because I'd like to attend. I'd gladly give my input at my region Rac if I knew when it would be discussed. Many hunters are passionate about this topic and would like some change. With hopes those changes can be a win-win for everyone. Even from those who were frustrated about the expo contract bid. I'd really like to see this gain some traction.

Nebo
Feel free to send me a PM with any details





"Wildlife and its habitat cannot speak. So
we must and we will."
Theadore Roosevelt
 
Hey Tri, I know you're in Texas. Can I assume by the number of posts on this topic that Harvey has spared you and your family? Hope so.

Not meaning to hijack the post, but I'm guessing Tri will be looking at it again!
 
>Straight up question for all on
>here.
>
>Have LE tags for all species
>increased in the draw since
>the conservation tags began?

Trick question. Yes, LE tags increased. But because the DWR changed the age class of the units. The NEBO, MANTI, WASATCH, for elk lowered the age class for the units so there could be more tags issued. So yes, since the conservation tag handouts, there are more LE tags, but not due to more 6-7yr old bulls, but because they made it easier to hit the goals by simply lowering the goals.

Notice how the units that the $$$ didn't focus on were downgraded. They didn't do it to the Pahvant or San Juan. One needs only look at where the high dollar guides operate to figure out why other units were downgraded.


"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun"
 
I applaud your efforts Richard, and back you 100%. Will make sure to be at my RAC and the WB meeting when this gets on the agenda. Thank you...
 
You could arrange a swap of permits for the conservation groups. The state gets the limited entry tags to put back in the draw and in return the group gets to auction off a few general season deer tags in the units that have left over tags available. Haha
 
Nebo
Encouraging, through members, the return of these tags to the public is a waste of time:
- They have very few members anyway
- Membership is now a small portion of their revenue.
- They are not groups that care about the needs of the members, they are lobbyist groups that lobby for the best interest of the FEW leaders and Elite Members that provide revenue.

With that said:
If you want to make a difference:
- Get a petition going that indicates VOTING will change if this plan is not adjusted
- Organize a group or 2 in a specific area that meet with a State Rep, show him that you can sway the vote and get him OUT OF OFFICE if something does not change.

Just my 2 cents
Mike
 
I am on board with this idea 100%. A 50% return to the draw is probably not enough, but it is a good start. So I will get on board with that idea.

Nebo, is this going to be an official proposition? Or is this just a philosophical discussion at this point? I don't belong to any organization that is getting welfare tags from the state to support their existence. So they won't listen to me anyway. I'd rather convince the Wildlife Board to finally do the right thing on this topic than convince a welfare recipient that it is time to give up their government assistance and make it on their own.
 
How about the logical reason being we are restoring the tags to where they were originally before they were "taken from one model and placed in another"!
 
The fact of the matter is that you need a group of sportsman and ideally a Conservation Group to carry this to the RACs. The DWR most likely won't go with it unless there is support from one or more of the Conservation groups. Money is the bottom line and whether or not the different groups can live without it every other or so. It really wouldn't affect the day to day funding needed for the division but some projects may take a little longer or need more volunteers to accomplish. But things would still move forward
 
Yeah, I get it would take them getting on board to make it pass. But like I said, people that don't want to work aren't too keen on giving up their food stamps. "Conservation" organizations aren't going to be happy to give up their golden goose provided entirely by the government with public resources either.

Still, I support your idea and will help any way I can to make it happen.
 
The people who buy auctioned tags have money. If they can't get a tag by just throwing money at it, they are going to get it legislated. It may cost a bit more, but that doesn't matter to the "elite". Can't buy a tag at auction? Fine. Call up a congresscritter and start pushing for more "outfitter" tags. And looser restrictions on how they can sell them.

Even if you got half of the auction tags returned to the draw, the odds on most of those units are already so astronomical that there would be absolutely no difference in your draw percentage.

The auctioned tags aren't causing it. It's people who absolutely can't see a deer without figuring a score on it. People who will pass up a 195" buck because they "need" a 200. Those people make videos and pretty soon everyone thinks hunting is just another score game.

It's easy to blame some fatcat buying a tag at auction. But look at yourself. Do you have a minimum score before you will take a buck? Would you hunt in a unit that has never produced a P&Y buck, let alone B&C? That unit may have a healthy deer population, and produce mature 4X4s every year, but how many people pass it up because there are no freakish antler genetics there?

A record book buck is a truly unusual animal, and the more emphasis we put on score, the harder places with those unusual genetics get pounded. The licensing agencies manage for trophy quality, because people demand it. Of course, to do that, they need to sharply restrict the number of tags. The more they restrict the tags, the more mature bucks there are, monsters come out every year, and next year there are 20% more people applying. That won't change until people's attitudes toward scores do.

Once a place gets a reputation as a producer of trophies, it becomes sought after. People with money will always find a way to buy their way into any restricted scenario. Look at Texas whitetails. Inches got to be worth money, now they breed whitetails like Holsteins on high-fenced "game ranches" and charge big money to shoot a particular buck over a feeder. Africa has gone that way too. I saw a while back where a bull Cape Buffalo sold for over $10 MILLION US, for breeding stock on a game ranch.

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with holding out for a real trophy. But maybe a "real trophy" isn't the same size everywhere. How many 200+ bucks does anybody need? How long until you can't even remember when or where you shot that one, third from the left, fourth row, east wall? Do you tell your kid that the forkhorn she shot has no value? Will she believe you, when she sees you passing up what would be most folks' "buck of a lifetime" just because it doesn't meet some arbitrary measurement threshold?

I don't really have a dog in this fight, because I hunt public land, on the least crowded units I can find. I don't have the time or the money to put in six weeks hunting every year. I get a Saturday here, a weekend there, maybe four or five days in a row if I've managed to save up some vacation. I'm perfectly happy with a doe, although I'll certainly take a mature buck given the opportunity. I tell myself I'm holding out for a buck the first few weeks of the season, just because I enjoy being out there. I'll never be able to buy a tag at auction. I buy a few Super Tag lottery tickets, mostly for moose and bison, where ANY tag is nearly impossible to draw. I never expect to win, but if I did I'd consider it a "once in a lifetime" opportunity.
 
Scubo wrote-Even if you got half of the auction tags returned to the draw, the odds on most of those units are already so astronomical that there would be absolutely no difference in your draw percentage.
Except for the 50-60 guys who wouldn't have drawn if there were a few more tags that came over from the conservation program.To them it was a 100% draw percentage. Who do we manage wildlife for? 1-first its the viability of the species itself 2- its hunter management and opportunity (social aspect)
 
>Except for the 50-60 guys who
>wouldn't have drawn if there
>were a few more tags
>that came over from the
>conservation program.To them it was
>a 100% draw percentage. Who
>do we manage wildlife for?
>1-first its the viability of
>the species itself 2- its
>hunter management and opportunity (social
>aspect)

Kinda sounds like this is less about "make sure more people get a tag" and more about "make sure THOSE people DON'T get a tag". I get it; it burns me too. But there will always be a few folks who can afford to dump a lot of money on whatever they want. If they want a deer tag, and are willing to spend like a shipfull of drunken sailors for it, someone will figure out a way to get them one. Realistically, big money always wins. At least this way, there ought to be some benefit to local game management. If they went to Argentina or Namibia instead nobody wins.

Also, anything you did that made more tags available would mean more people applying. If Game & Fish cut off the auction tags, they need to get some mileage out of it. Press release- "50 additional tags available in Unit XX this year!" Bingo, applications in Unit XX go up 15-20%. Basically, once a unit has a reputation as a trophy producer, you have to have a horribly unfair way to restrict tags, or it gets overhunted right to death. Either you have a general draw, and 99.99% don't get a tag, or you auction off a few tags, 99.99% STILL don't get a tag, but some (theoretically) worthwhile causes get funded.

I don't hunt Utah, so I don't know- are there that many tags from a single unit being auctioned? Everywhere else I've been, it's like one tag per unit, or one per species.
 
Let them go to Argentina or Nambia a fellow Utahn or a deserving NR will get the tag. Don't hunt Ut huh??
 
LAST EDITED ON Aug-30-17 AT 06:05PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Aug-30-17 AT 06:04?PM (MST)

There is an article in the current issue of the WSF magazine "Wild Sheep" this month that has detailed dollar numbers on every state and Canadian province/territory's sheep tags. Dollar totals for resident tags, non-resident tags, auction tags, and raffle tags.

Resident tag $$ are by far the least - with by far the most tags allocated. NR draw tags raise the next highest $$, and auction and raffle tags the highest. On average, about 70% of all $$ from sheep tags comes from the two auction/raffle tags most states offer. (Some states have more but some states have none or only one.)

Auction and raffle tag numbers have not increased in quite a while. The money they generate is astounding. That money benefits the resource - which ends up benefiting everyone. WAY more than having one or two more tags in the general draw.

Get some facts. Don't let jealousy or envy carry the day.

P.S. I have never bought an auction tag. But I have dang sure benefited from those that have.
 
>LAST EDITED ON Aug-30-17
>AT 06:05?PM (MST)
>
>LAST EDITED ON Aug-30-17
>AT 06:04?PM (MST)
>
>There is an article in the
>current issue of the WSF
>magazine "Wild Sheep" this month
>that has detailed dollar numbers
>on every state and Canadian
>province/territory's sheep tags. Dollar totals
>for resident tags, non-resident tags,
>auction tags, and raffle tags.
>
>
>Resident tag $$ are by far
>the least - with by
>far the most tags allocated.
>NR draw tags raise the
>next highest $$, and auction
>and raffle tags the highest.
>On average, about 70% of
>all $$ from sheep tags
>comes from the two auction/raffle
>tags most states offer. (Some
>states have more but some
>states have none or only
>one.)
>
>Auction and raffle tag numbers have
>not increased in quite a
>while. The money they generate
>is astounding. That money benefits
>the resource - which ends
>up benefiting everyone. WAY more
>than having one or two
>more tags in the general
>draw.
>
>Get some facts. Don't let jealousy
>or envy carry the day.
>
>
>P.S. I have never bought an
>auction tag. But I have
>dang sure benefited from those
>that have.


I think u might be somewhat true with sheep. I haven't seen some great expansion on the manti for elk. Ai tag money stays on the island, which generally burns every year or 2. What we have seen is Manti, Nebo, Wasatch, were sacrificed in order to try and lessen tag creeps.
Not to mention, there still,to this day is nowhere that shows exactly where money goes. Lastly, whether u love the system or not, it IS NOT anything other than what it is, an end run on points and waiting periods, to guarantee tags to certain few.

Sheep are such a tiny population, on such a tiny fraction of habitat, u may be able to make some connection. But for elk, and deer(the species $fw was created to save), and their habitat area, you'd be hard pressed to show results.



"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun"
 
Furthermore, if your contention is true, the state with the most of these tags, should have the best hunting in each species. You can't name one, that is the first on everyone's plate, minus the Henerys, which rose not because of some grand effort, but simply by being closed for years.


"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun"
 
How the $$$ are handled is a separate issue.

Utah obviously has major issues on that front.
 
LAST EDITED ON Aug-30-17 AT 09:25PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Aug-30-17 AT 09:14?PM (MST)

Scubo

Your second paragraph on post #43 exactly shows and proves the point about how long this idea is overdue. Although I think the comment was over exaggerated.
To really have an idea of what we are dealing with is look at number of hunters collecting points, draw odds, point creep for LE/OIL hunts, number of new hunters joining and you can see an overwhelming line that continues to grow! Newcomers may never get a chance at a premium tag. Ever! But please don't forget to sit down and count all the auctioned tags since the expos conception. It's absurd!

I get it, the state wants to make money to fund projects. (90% return) But the conservation tags being auctioned grows each year with minimal progress made on our herds.

To me, it's in justifiable. Something needs to change and many agree!
Our previous winter didn't help things either. Predictions for next winter don't look any better than the last one.

An important note on this entire matter is nobody is saying quit auctioning tags to fund projects. Many just think it's not as balanced as it should be.






"Wildlife and its habitat cannot speak. So
we must and we will."
Theadore Roosevelt
 
LAST EDITED ON Aug-30-17 AT 09:42PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Aug-30-17 AT 09:41?PM (MST)

Resident/nonresident bonus point summaries on years 2010 and 2017


https://wildlife.utah.gov/hunting/biggame/pdf/2017/17_point_summary.pdf

https://wildlife.utah.gov/hunting/biggame/pdf/10_bonus_point_summary.pdf


Link to the lists of conservation tags each year starting in 2013-2017
5 pages long in 2013
8 pages long in 2017 (including a smaller font size) :)

Who's gunna add them up? I ain't doing it again!


https://wildlife.utah.gov/?option=com_content&view=article&catid=118:big-game&id=839





"Wildlife and its habitat cannot speak. So
we must and we will."
Theadore Roosevelt
 
Cbeard....

If you actually look at the project list that these conservation funds pay for, how many of them directly affect you where you hunt? I've noticed there was ONLY ONE project that was done in my GS hunting unit. And it was for mountain goat transplants. Taking goats and moving them somewhere else. Sure others will benefit and that's wonderful. But the point is that we all aren't directly affected by these projects.

For me to say I have benefited from projects funded by these conservation tags would be a lie!

The majority of these projects directly impact premium tag holders. So unless you're drawing premium tags multiple years as of late, your probably not benefiting much.

Another thing, little discussion is mentioned of the magnificent weather Utah has had over the last half decade. Yet some groups (I won't mention names) toot their own horns that they've been the biggest factor in growing herds. These groups would love us all to think they are a God send and have saved our wildlife.






"Wildlife and its habitat cannot speak. So
we must and we will."
Theadore Roosevelt
 
>Cbeard....
>
>If you actually look at the
>project list that these conservation
>funds pay for, how many
>of them directly affect you
>where you hunt? I've noticed
>there was ONLY ONE project
>that was done in my
>GS hunting unit. And it
>was for mountain goat transplants.
>Taking goats and moving them
>somewhere else. Sure others will
>benefit and that's wonderful. But
>the point is that we
>all aren't directly affected by
>these projects.
>
>For me to say I have
>benefited from projects funded by
>these conservation tags would be
>a lie!
>
>The majority of these projects directly
>impact premium tag holders. So
>unless you're drawing premium tags
>multiple years as of late,
>your probably not benefiting much.
>
>
>Another thing, little discussion is mentioned
>of the magnificent weather Utah
>has had over the last
>half decade. Yet some groups
>(I won't mention names) toot
>their own horns that they've
>been the biggest factor in
>growing herds. These groups would
>love us all to think
>they are a God send
>and have saved our wildlife.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>"Wildlife and its habitat cannot speak.
>So
>we must and we will."
>Theadore Roosevelt

You mean that $250k AI tag didn't prevent the 85% fawn mortality rate this year? I'm sure the push is on, give them 400 for next year, the mule deer are suffering!


"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun"
 
>How the $$$ are handled is
>a separate issue.
>
>Utah obviously has major issues on
>that front.

No, how the money is handled is exactly the issue. Pretty illogical to give money to a group, that handles it "poorly", then give them more, because although they did a poor job, in THEORY, its a good idea.

Its like giving me another case of ice cream, when its obvious I did a poor job handling the first one!


"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun"
 
LAST EDITED ON Aug-31-17 AT 02:16AM (MST)[p]Here is a previous topic on the subject. What was interesting is the discussion involving the increase in app fees or tag fees in the draw to make up the difference in revenue lost.

http://utahwildlife.net/forum/22-everything-else/168154-conservation-permits-expo.html

Here's the permit numbers and funds generated from conservation permits. Now ask yourself.... Do you see a 44 1/2 million dollar difference in our herds over the last decade??. If not, we have a problem.

2017 isn't on there but it was 316 tags. with $3,720,000 approx. going back into conservation projects according to SFW website

Also is a list of projects these conservation funds will go towards.

http://wildlife.utah.gov/pdf/conservation_permit_report_2016.pdf

Now I am curious to find out if these conservation permits make up less than 5% of the total allocated permits each year since the expo began. (2007) I haven't looked at the total number of tags in the draws for each year. But I'm wondering if the number of conservation permits exceeds 5% of the total tags from the draw each year.

Who has time to add to the research?


YEAR Money made Permits

2001 $916,652 216
2002 $1,055,689 299
2003 $1,285,729 340
2004 $1,742,722 304
2005 $1,679,663 334
2006 $3,032,280 382
2007 $2,884,602 358
2008 $2,924,665 359
2009 $2,494,922 361
2010 $2,863,240 342
2011 $2,472,440 341
2012 $2,797,880 322
2013 $3,148,882 316
2014 $3,460,639 317
2015 $4,060,955 317
2016 $3,945,590 314
2017 $3,720,000 (approx.) 316

$44,486,600 5,538 permits














"Wildlife and its habitat cannot speak. So
we must and we will."
Theadore Roosevelt
 
If you send mama to the cosmetic surgeon and she comes home with DD, it easy to see where the money went.

When you put new rims on the truck, its visible.

The fact that we are asking, kinda proves itself. NO. Even including 2 years that deer were fed, there isn't that kind of improvement.

However. Its not hard to show the "improvement" in the expo year over year.



"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun"
 
With sheep, I consider any benefit to the resource a benefit to me - whether I will hunt there or not. At the very least, more tags means more chance for me to maybe draw one.

And how the $$$ are spent is a separate issue from whether or not to do away with auction tags.

Just because much of the $44 million was squandered doesn't mean you want to quit generating the money. It should mean you want to make sure it is not wasted.

The wild sheep community is pretty good at that for the most part.

And, no, the tags aren't "given" to the conservation groups. They are merely conduits for selling them. At least, in all cases except for the Utah situation - which is, shall we say, unique.
 
Again.....no one here is saying "do away with the auction tags"
Myself, others included have reasonable curiousity to the question.....if these deep pocket hunting individuals know that the number of auctioned tags are lower (cut in half) or more limited than previous auctioned years thus creating more competition for the lower number of tags available at auction, are they willing to reach deeper in their pockets to try and get them? All in the name of conservation yet I remind you! Isn't that the purpose of auctions? Create some competition and bring in more money?
Only trying this idea would we really know!
Split these auctioned tags in half (approx 155) put them back in the state drawing, watch what happens in February at the auction. Then put those tags back at auction the following year and see what happens. Then on the third year, split them again and see what happens.

A three year study (pilot program) should tell us if the state can make profiently enough money with only half the auctioned tags. Look also at the total number of attendees at the expo. Did they go up or down?

id like to see! So what if it doesn't turn out quite like everyone anticipated? So it takes an extra year to complete some projects. No harm no foul right?




"Wildlife and its habitat cannot speak. So
we must and we will."
Theadore Roosevelt
 
Conservation Permits 2013:
Buck Deer - 40
Bull Elk - 98
Buck Pronghorn - 22
Desert Bighorn - 6
Rocky Mtn Bighorn - 5
Rocky Mtn Goat - 9
Bison - 4
Bull Moose - 2
Bear - 22
Cougar - 16
Turkey - 23
Antlerless Elk - 13
Total - 260

Conservation Permits 2017:
Buck Deer - 41
Bull Elk - 98
Buck Pronghorn - 23
Desert Bighorn - 6
Rocky Mtn Bighorn - 6
Rocky Mtn Goat - 6
Bison - 5
Bull Moose - 2
Bear - 18
Cougar - 11
Turkey - 14
Antlerless Elk- 11
Total - 241

Obviously, the configuration of the print on the lists (number of pages, size of the text) is deceiving. In any case, you'll have to go back further than 2013 to find any significant difference.

(I'm cooking breakfast, I'll finish this later.)
 
I did the math on the numbers a few years ago. I believe sheep and elk numbers were over the allotted amounts. I am trying to go off memory but I think the sheep tags are allotted at 10-15%.
 
LAST EDITED ON Aug-31-17 AT 10:43AM (MST)[p]I bid on a few tags last year....didn't win any. And will probably be trying again this year. But let's be honest....reducing the supply of auction tags will do very little towards increasing the prices realized. Utah auction permit prices, compared to other states who offer very few, are quite similar. People in the market for an auction tag are not dumb...they will "shop" the whole west, not just Utah. So reducing the number of permits is not going to raise prices enough, or at all, in order keep total revenue the same. Forget that notion. But again, if we're being honest, the conservation permit and convention permit programs are not about maximizing dollars gotten from the permits anyway. If it was only about that, we wouldn't have the PR games that are being played with them. I refer to the numerous conservation auction permits which only residents are allowed to bid on. That's a PR game. And further, there wouldn't be convention permits dedicated to only Non-Residents. Another PR game which results in certain premium tags netting roughly $5,000 as convention tags, that could be bringing $50,000-$80,000 as auction tags. Just more PR games.

If you're only trying to maximize profit from permit sales, then taking ALL the tags off the auction and convention block, and simply raising the price charged by the UTAH DWR, should increase revenue by several fold. There's little question the demand is already there, based on the astronomical draw odds we have now. My guess you could make a crap-ton more money for Utah's wildlife conservation programs that way, and totally eliminate all the 3rd party profiteering.
 
If your selling 6 desert sheep tags there MUST be over a 100 in the general draw? Hey where did they go? What happened to the 5% rule??
 
Deerlove-

The administrative rule has a different forumal for allcoating sheep tags than for other big game species. See https://wildlife.utah.gov/rules-regulations/970-r657-41--conservation-and-sportsman-permits.html

(3) A limited number of area conservation permits may be authorized as follows:
(a) the potential number of multi-year and single year permits available for Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep and desert bighorn sheep, assigned to a hunt area or combination of hunt areas, will be calculated based on the number permits issued the year prior to the permits being awarded using the following rule:
(i) 5-14 public permits = 1 conservation permit, 15-24 public permits = 2 conservation permits, 25-34 public permits = 3 conservation permits, 35-44 permits = 4 conservation permits, 45-54 public permits = 5 conservation permits, 55-64 = 6 conservation permits, 65-74 public permits = 7 conservation permits and >75 public permits = 8 conservation permits.

(b) the potential number of multi-year and single year permits available for the remaining conservation permit species, for any unit or hunt area, will be calculated based on the number permits issued the year prior to the permits being awarded using the following rule:
(i) 11-30 public permits = 1 conservation permit, 31-50 public permits = 2 conservation permits, 51-70 public permits = 3 conservation permits, 71-90 permits = 4 conservation permits, 91-110 public permits = 5 conservation permits, 111-130 = 6 conservation permits, 131-150 public permits = 7 conservation permits and >150 public permits = 8 conservation permits.

Section (4) of R657-41 is a real kicker for the avergae joes. It reads: "The number of conservation permits may be reduced if the number of public permits declines during the time period or which multi-year permits were awarded." This means that when the DWR allocates tags for a 3 year period (which the groups lobbied for and received), and the herds decline, the public tags will be reduced but the big money conservation tags "may" be reduced. Good luck convincing the cosnervation groups, RACS and WB of that one.

-Hawkeye-
 
I wanted to add one more thing.

There are a lot of sportsmen and sports women who I know would love to donate their time and efforts to help with any projects the DWR needs.

The hunting community is full of giving and supportive individuals. There should never be a short fall involving "boots on the ground" to do any project work.

There are many hunters who don't belong to any conservation groups who are willing and able to help.







"Wildlife and its habitat cannot speak. So
we must and we will."
Theadore Roosevelt
 
LAST EDITED ON Sep-02-17 AT 11:59PM (MST)[p]>Conservation Permits 2013:
>Buck Deer - 40
>Bull Elk - 98
>Buck Pronghorn - 22
>Desert Bighorn - 6
>Rocky Mtn Bighorn - 5
>Rocky Mtn Goat - 9
>Bison - 4
>Bull Moose - 2
>Bear - 22
>Cougar - 16
>Turkey - 23
>Antlerless Elk - 13
>Total - 260
>
>Conservation Permits 2017:
>Buck Deer - 41
>Bull Elk - 98
>Buck Pronghorn - 23
>Desert Bighorn - 6
>Rocky Mtn Bighorn - 6
>Rocky Mtn Goat - 6
>Bison - 5
>Bull Moose - 2
>Bear - 18
>Cougar - 11
>Turkey - 14
>Antlerless Elk- 11
>Total - 241
>
>Obviously, the configuration of the print
>on the lists (number of
>pages, size of the text)
>is deceiving. In any case,
>you'll have to go back
>further than 2013 to find
>any significant difference.
>
>(I'm cooking breakfast, I'll finish this
>later.)

Oops! I messed up the numbers. I'm sorry for the bad math which I did when I couldn't sleep (insomnia), but the conclusion still stands.

Here's the correction.

2013:
Buck Deer - 38
Bull Elk - 109
Buck Pronghorn - 35
Desert Bighorn - 6
Rocky Mtn Bighorn - 5
Rocky Mtn Goat - 10
Bison - 4
Bull Moose - 3
Bear - 24
Cougar - 21
Turkey - 42
Antlerless Elk - 19
Total - 316

2017:
Buck Deer - 48
Bull Elk - 107
Buck Pronghorn - 37
Desert Bighorn - 6
Rocky Mtn Bighorn - 6
Rocky Mtn Goat - 6
Bison - 5
Mull Moose - 3
Bear - 29
Cougar - 11
Turkey - 39
Antlerless Elk - 19
Total - 316 (Yes, exactly the same as 2013.)

There now, I feel better about correcting my mistake and you folks can do with that information whatever you want to in order to make your case (or not!). And hopefully we'll eventually get around to discussing the real root of the dilemma.
 
LAST EDITED ON Sep-03-17 AT 10:48AM (MST)[p]elkfromabove wrote:

..."There now, I feel better about correcting my mistake and you folks can do with that information whatever you want to in order to make your case (or not!). And hopefully we'll eventually get around to discussing the real root of the dilemma."


As always, would love to hear your thoughts on what the "real root of the dilemma" might be", Lee. Appreciate you insight...
 
OGDEN ? Growing cougar populations in Utah have prompted the state's wildlife managers to recommend increasing the number of cougar hunting permits this fall to 579, up from 531 last year.

The state's cougar populations have grown about 3 percent annually since 2004 and Division of Wildlife Resources models estimate that there are now between 1,900 and 4,000 adult mountain lions living in Utah, said Darren DeBloois, the division's game mammals program coordinator.


Hunters ended up killing 400 cougars during the last season and 371 during the 2015-16 season, the Standard-Examiner reported.

Wildlife biologists calculate the quotas by collecting data from the killed cougars that hunters must show to state officials in inspections.

"There are two management criteria ? the percent of females in harvest, we want that to be below 40 percent," DeBloois said. "The other thing we look at is how many animals are 5 years and older. That helps to ensure we have a good adult component."

At least 15 percent of the cougars must be over 5 years old. A stable growing population is maintained in the state by using these numbers, DeBloois said. In the season last year, 28 percent of hunted cougars were female, and 23 percent were 5 years or older."

I just read an article involving cougar populations. This article made me question why there would be less cougars taken to the auction block in 2017 then there was in 2013 if populations have increased annually? What I'm getting at is this is one example of maybe several where certain groups are wanting to auction more tags of certain species rather than what the states populations of certain species would suggest. (If you look at elkfromaboves numbers in his earlier post. 16 tags in 2013 and 11 tags in 2017)









"Wildlife and its habitat cannot speak. So
we must and we will."
Theadore Roosevelt
 
>With sheep, I consider any benefit
>to the resource a benefit
>to me - whether I
>will hunt there or not.
>At the very least, more
>tags means more chance for
>me to maybe draw one.
>
>
>And how the $$$ are spent
>is a separate issue from
>whether or not to do
>away with auction tags.
>
>Just because much of the $44
>million was squandered doesn't mean
>you want to quit generating
>the money. It should mean
>you want to make sure
>it is not wasted.
>
>The wild sheep community is pretty
>good at that for the
>most part.
>
>And, no, the tags aren't "given"
>to the conservation groups. They
>are merely conduits for selling
>them. At least, in all
>cases except for the Utah
>situation - which is, shall
>we say, unique.

WTH? $44 million squandered and we should keep doing what we are doing? Do you have any clue how much ACTUAL habitat $44million could have BOUGHT?

The #1 reason hunters quit is ACCESS. Its not a few more inches in a San Juan elk. Its not making sure AI holds 40" bucks. Its ACCESS. Lee Greenwood singing to a very select few over a dinner in the spring, doesn't buy one single acre. $44million buys a bunch, and those tags are from the citizenry, not the groups.

The fact that they posses away money, is PRECISELY the reason this program should end.

Lets not pretend. Every tag that isn't in the draw is one more guy in the creep. As a guy with an 11yr old looking at him knowing I will be dead before he could draw, its starts to be personal.
"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun"
 
I hope this will help clarify to some where I stand on this issue. I've had some report in some committees and groups there is some sinister attempt to take away the money from the conservation groups--untrue. To those who are doing it am not calling for the conservation program to go away-please stop mischaracterizing my stand.

I am 100% behind the conservation groups having some funding to accomplish worthy conservation projects to enhance wildlife viability in this state

I am in favor of taking 30- 50 (certainly a negotiable number) LE bucks and bull tags from the conservation groups and giving putting them back into the general LE tag pool on an every other year basis so that the public can benefit from the increased number of available tags

I have never advocated or suggested that the $5 Expo tags be eliminated or changed

I absolutely believe and know that the conservation tag money has been an absolute boon to wildlife enhancement in this state and that hunting opportunity and tags have increased in some areas because of that work

I also know that increases in wildlife populations have more to do with weather circumstances from year to year than any other factor.

I know that available forage for wildlife on critical wintering grounds is close to weather factors in determining the rate of survival of big game species.(we are slowly losing that battle for maintaining those lands)

I know that many of the ancillary programs--i.e. transplants, feeding etc are all viable programs that help but individually statistically will be limited to specific areas.

I believe that whenever LE big game tags are reduced on any unit that conservation tags also be reduced and if the formula for issuing a conservation tag states that they should no longer be issued until the LE tags can be increased for the general public draw- it should be adhered too-- the pain should be felt by the conservation groups as well as the public.

I believe that the predator control program should continue because I believe it does have an impact in helping wildlife populations grow and helps keep our wildlife out of the "predator pit" population wise.

I absolutely support the DWR and its working men and women and trust they are doing their absolute best to keep our wildlife heritage alive and well

I absolutely know that wildlife/hunting is more of a social issue than anything else. Wildlife populations/hunting is governed first by minimum biological numbers to maintain viable health -- bucks per hundred does minimum and then maximum buck/doe ratios/total populations- knowing that managing populations inbetween is all social driven. Making sure that the minimum biological standards are protected, it is social factors that drive population goals, buck/doe ratios, predator control, LE unit designations, mature bucks available etc.

There may be more I could say but that is enough-- I hope its clear to you where I stand, I trust you won't ever mischaracterize my intentions or my stand.
 
Welcome to the party Richard. Whenever these issues have been raised in the past, some folks within the conservation groups and even the DWR have attacked the messengers and blatantly mischaractized the arguments. It is easier to tear down a "straw man" than it is to address logical, factual arguments. It is easier to simply label you as a "conservation group hater" or as "ignornant" than it is to engage in real dialogue regarding the issues. Hang in there but get used to the attacks. Unfortunately, that is the M.O. for some of these folks.

-Hawkeye-
 
Nebo... there was not a single statement in your last post that I disagree with. Your comments were spot on.
My question is how do we get this discussion at the wildlife board/RACS and what time frame are we looking at for this to take place??
Many share these same views.








"Wildlife and its habitat cannot speak. So
we must and we will."
Theadore Roosevelt
 
It would be a major task to get the ear of the RACs and the WB if we can't get one of the established Conservation Groups to help. They definitely are well organized enough to have some leverage. You get one of them to state they are supportive of giving up a few conservation tags on an every other year basis so that the hunters in this state would have a tiny bit better chance to draw an LE tag, the landscape for seriously considering this permit adjustment changes. Like I've said before, we should be working hand in hand with the conservation groups on this-- we are NOT enemies or on opposite sides of the fence.
 
"It would be a major task to get the ear of the RACs and the WB if we can't get one of the established Conservation Groups to help."

I agree with this sentence 100%. And it is a perfect illustration of everything that is wrong with big game management in the state of Utah. Why on earth do the "conservation" organizations get to dictate everything that happens?

Yes, they have done some good things. But if they were, in fact, "conservation" organizations, they'd be more concerned with conservation than they are about lining their pockets with public welfare tags. But alas, round and around we go...

nebo's proposal is tame, and one that does not go nearly far enough to correct the ills that we face here in Utah when it comes to big game hunting. But it is a good start, so I'd still support it. And it still has very little to no chance of passing.
 

Similar threads

J
Mule Deer and CWD
Replies
45
Views
1k
HIcountryman
HIcountryman
F
1.8 Satisfaction rate for Thousand Lakes
Replies
34
Views
2k
SS!
SS!
runamuk
Idaho wildlife federation
Replies
10
Views
823
devobrodie
devobrodie

Click-a-Pic ... Details & Bigger Photos

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

Nice Alberta Buck
D137ED25-28BB-404A-A973-42397A6A186E.jpeg
20171204_163621.jpg
651C05EF-FB8C-45EB-B346-0A96486C6724.jpeg
Big Ole Buck for Muley_73
1E727AB1-C4D1-4C79-9A61-5F7172796B1C.jpeg
20171202_151525.jpg
5891942F-B2CA-436B-A9D2-65BBC4DBFCE4.jpeg
Gotta' Love Mass
20210701_064344.jpg
3FD8D7A2-5D76-408B-ADBA-DF8925173BF4.png
20220801_15534010.jpg
Back
Top Bottom