>I can see that you only
>have 8 posts so maybe
>you are new here.
>One would think that your logic
>should be correct but you
>will find that the State
>of Utah puts alot of
>weight on the $$$
Broadside, longtime fly-on-the-wall decided to finally join these discussions now that I am old enough to think critically instead of just spouting off the first (and often incorrect) assessment or appraisal of a situation.
I get that the state wants to see as much $$ as possible go to conservation (as would 99.999% of hunters). So let's say an average conservation tag sells for, $10,000 (all species average, I could be off on the estimate) just to make the numbers nice and round. 250ish total conservation tags across the state and across the various foundations. That would make $750,000 that the state gets directly for wildlife conservation. (30% of the total goes to the state, the other 70% goes to the foundation that sold the tag for their conservation efforts.
The numbers I quoted in my last post (Manti LE Bull Elk tags alone) generate $123,00 in gross revenue for the state.
I guess I'm having a hard time seeing your point that conservation tags provide the $$$ for the state. It seems to me that the revenue is weighted in the opposite direction that you are suggesting.
However, this could be considered politics so rational thought should be thrown out the window I guess