Wildlife Conservation-How should we raise money for wildlife projects?

N

nebo12000

Active Member
Messages
634
LAST EDITED ON Mar-11-16 AT 11:19AM (MST)[p]Do any of you have any good ways to raise the money needed to get wildlife enhancement projects funded and paid for? Really looking for ways to accomplish that--- NOT complaints about the current system.
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-11-16 AT 11:17AM (MST)[p]Habitat improvement, winter range acquisition (tough to do here in Utah now) Highway fencing, wildlife overpasses/underpasses, continued predator control. I believe these are the most critical needs right now.
 
Richard, thank for starting this thread. For starters, if we are going to use public tags or other public property to raise money for conservation then there should be a strict requirement that most, if not all, of the money generated be used for actual conservation projects with an annual audit. We need to remember that the goal is to fund conservation projects not to fund conservation groups.

-Hawkeye-
 
There goes the Jim Jones of the internet. A busted record sounds better than the continuous whining about audits. Which is funny because apparently you don't even know what one is.
 
Nebo,

Great question, lets look at this w/out any conservation or expo permit $$'s. That's right let's eliminate them.

This would also assume we all believe that the conservation efforts of all groups has been beneficial/needed to date and if we found a way to give this money directly to the DWR do we trust they will utilize if effectively. The last number I could find on the DWR's website shows a total of $3.4MM (in 2014)for conservation permit sales across all groups, less the groups 10% leaves $3MM for the projects you outlined. Now there's the $1MM in expo fee money @ 30% which would give the state another $300K. I understand many folks want this to be 100% but contractually it's 30% so lets use that number as it's what reality is today.

So the nut to crack is ~$3.3MM annually to raise for conservation to be allotted and allocated to the DWR thus eliminating these programs. Is that a fair number to start with?
 
And Nebo, I know we can't forget all the donated hours from sportsman that work on those projects, no idea how to quantify that number yet...
 
Best question since 12/18/15.

1. Create a Habitat Stamp for any kind of license purchase.

2. Reduce Conservation Permits to 1%

3. Require 100% return on all Conservation and Expo Permit sales / applications.

4. Create a permit system for non-consumptive users. Bikers, Hikers, Horsemen, Boaters, Snow Machines and so on.

5. Increase AUM's.

6. Quit electing absolute idiots like Rob Bishop and Ken Ivory.



"WE USED TO HUNT GAME TO
MANAGE, NOW WE MANAGE TO
HUNT"
Finn 2/14/16
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-11-16 AT 01:23PM (MST)[p]Great question.
The state gets funding from many different areas. After reading your post, the first thing that came to mind is budget.
Looks like the annual budget for 2015 was 81 million.
As a resident Hunter, I would gladly pay alittle more money to hunt. (Not 2k like trollstate mentioned) but an increase to remove a number of tags from the auction block and/or help with projects
Another idea would be to make expo tag revenue a 90/10 split. 90% to the DWR and 10% to the nonprofit group.

Late spring, early summer all the way until late fall, you can find me spending tons of time driving around to different locations for scouting,hiking, and hunting in my 2000 Chevy Silverado that has nearly 200k miles on it. Those law enforcement guys don't need to drive brand new trucks with pretty stickers on the door. Cut back some. Geez.

Just a few ideas

http://wildlife.utah.gov/about-us/64-what-we-do/about-us/191-financial-overview.html

Theodore Roosevelt's guidance concerning
conservation...
"The movement for the conservation of wildlife,
and the conservation of all our natural resources,
are essentially democratic in spirit,purpose and
method."

"We do not intend that our natural resources shall
be exploited by the few against the interests of the
majority. Our aim is to preserve our natural
resources for the public as a whole, for the
average man and the average woman who make
up the body of the American people."

"It is in our power...to preserve game..and to give
reasonable opportunities for the exercise of the
skill of the hunter,whether he is or is not a man of
means."
 
Add a line to the 1040 Tax Form

Do you support the reintroduction of wolves and the impact it has to wildlife?

A. Yes
B. No

If you checked (A) above add $500.00 to the amount you owe.
 
Habitat stamp or increase license fee's by $21.75 and you answer the $3.3MM number I posed earlier.

I got to that number by taking the 122K general season deer permit applications added the 29K of General Spike/Any Bull elk applications. Could be some redundancy or some left on the table specifically non residents applying for LE/OIL tags. Once you break down the math would you all pay a $21.75 habitat fee or higher license fee to eliminate those programs?

One additional question as I'm looking but can't find it; does our license money get 100% allocated to the DWR/DNR or does a percentage hit the general fund?
 
Despite the fact that it came from a total dipchit like Tristate, it is a good point, why not just raise the price of licenses? I still do not see why we as hunters and fishermen push back so much against increase licensing fees. It seems to me that much of the complaints about raffling tags would end if you just simply raised the price or the tag or license.

Fishing licenses are the worst offenders. The state of Wyoming spends almost 4 times what they take in from fishing licenses on sport fishing in Wyoming.

Make the license cost what it takes to manage the species. End the gimmicky raffles, Sportsmen and Governors tags and hunters and fishermen pay what is needed to do what we love doing. Then when projects like habitat improvements or fencing are introduced we can determine how badly we want to help our herds.
 
Tworay...
I'd gladly pay an extra 20$ And change to hunt. Especially to eliminate the expo tags etc. I'm sure most would agree. It would help alittle with point creep too.


Theodore Roosevelt's guidance concerning
conservation...
"The movement for the conservation of wildlife,
and the conservation of all our natural resources,
are essentially democratic in spirit,purpose and
method."

"We do not intend that our natural resources shall
be exploited by the few against the interests of the
majority. Our aim is to preserve our natural
resources for the public as a whole, for the
average man and the average woman who make
up the body of the American people."

"It is in our power...to preserve game..and to give
reasonable opportunities for the exercise of the
skill of the hunter,whether he is or is not a man of
means."
 
Agree with predator control. The highway fencing and wildlife underpasses would be extremely beneficial. I think these should be added to any new highway construction or rebuild. This would obviously add extra cost to highway construction, but we are being forced to add bicycle lanes that the majority of folks don't use. In the grand scheme of highway construction, a few box culverts wouldn't have that great of an impact on the overall cost of construction. The cost would be spread out amongst all users and not just sportsmen. Highway fences would be maintenance intensive, especially in snow country. Unfortunately we are losing too much winter range. With some of the best winter range being private and closer to urban areas, subdivision development is inevitable.
 
my beef with raising tag prices. Is hunting just becoming a sport, or do some of us still use the game for way to reduce our grocery bill. I would say if you hunt deer alone then its just not worth the expense, you can buy beef for cheaper even if it is outragously high. I have lived off of elk meat for the last 16 years. Me and my wife draw cow tags every year and we have only not filled one permit. We usually can fill our tags on a simple trip. It will fill the freezer.
We should be demanding more animals so more tags can be drawn to keep prices lower. But to get to the point of having more animals we need the habitat.
Anyway that is my .02 cents.

Great post though. Thanks
 
How much are we spending on Sheep transplants? It seems like a huge investment and the herds always get sick and die off. Sheep hunting seem to cater to a few and not the majority.

I would gladly spend $20 more per tag if meant welfare tags went away.

I also think the dedicated hunter program could use some overhauling. Seems like a significant portion of projects are a waste. I like the program and I am a participant, but I would love to see more projects that benefited the deer and elk in areas I hunt.
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-11-16 AT 04:54PM (MST)[p]customweld brought up winter range. I'm concerned about state representatives such as Utah Senator Hinkins getting support from SFW or other nonprofit groups who might not have the average hunter in mind. Certain state reps want to sell off the land. In Idaho last week, A lawyer and utah state senator talked to the the people of Idaho claiming in one hand that the state won't sell off the public land. But on the other hand, say that Utahns are overpopulating the cities causing pollution problems and should be spread out more. So how do you not sell off the public land but disperse the population along the wasatch front?

https://www.facebook.com/jeffiscool/videos/10153977924264399/

http://www.idahostatesman.com/news/...gs/letters-from-the-west/article63227797.html

We need to figure out who's on our side as hunters and make sure we as hunters are getting support from the right state representatives. The more dispersed the population is in Utah, the less winter range there is for the wildlife.


Theodore Roosevelt's guidance concerning
conservation...
"The movement for the conservation of wildlife,
and the conservation of all our natural resources,
are essentially democratic in spirit,purpose and
method."

"We do not intend that our natural resources shall
be exploited by the few against the interests of the
majority. Our aim is to preserve our natural
resources for the public as a whole, for the
average man and the average woman who make
up the body of the American people."

"It is in our power...to preserve game..and to give
reasonable opportunities for the exercise of the
skill of the hunter,whether he is or is not a man of
means."
 
Buy more firearms, ammunition, archery equipment, fishing equipment and tackle, electric outboard motors and fuel for motorboats and small engines. It's called the Pittman Robertson tax. State Wildlife Agencies rely on these federal taxes to operate. As much as some of these states hate big brother they couldn't operate with out him.

This article is a couple years old but you get the jist.

http://archive.sltrib.com/story.php?ref=/sltrib/news/57733532-78/wildlife-fish-utah-taxes.html.csp
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-11-16 AT 10:01PM (MST)[p]I'd like to see an ROI breakdown for the last 15 or so years of conservation tag spending. I suspect in the business world it would be a failure, especially anything to do with wild sheep.

How do we as a state quantify succeses and failures of conservation endeavors?

Does our millions of dollars of spending show enhanced herd or opportunity growth when compared with surrounding states? Wouldn't we as the public like to at least see if our money is being spent prudently on worthwhile investments? If it is, then let's continue. If not, try another avenue. I for one would like to see a report with tangible results that validate the amount of money that is spent.

I agree with WW's solution to funding without copious amounts of tag selling.
 
Nebo, How do you eat an Elephant..Pick the ONE area you believe needs the most attention, work on that single need. If you look at "projects" as a whole it may be overwhelming.
Years ago when I supported the Dedicated Hunter Program, I suggested to make a requirement, that as a DH you had to attend 2 rac meetings a year where they could propose projects. The rac could pass along proposals to the WB...I was told Most DH weren't to that level of dedication, And the racks and WB had enough to deal with....
To bad so much time and effort is spent on things like Scopes for muzzleloaders, New Late hunts, And other idea's that make it easier to Take big game. Instead of programs, and finding funding for ways to improve what we already have.
After all these years of sfw, And you all know how I feel about the organisation. But I am not on THIS thread to denounce them. Anyway, With all the money collected from the Expo, Look at the number of things STILL NEEDED for Big Game.
The DWR has a responsibility to ALL Wildlife, I have been told this many times when IMO funds were wasted on thing like Bird watching boardwalks, Info Billboards for Animal "watchers". instead of Big Game programs. Maybe Legislation requiring the DWR to Spend a greater percentage of moneys on the Game Animals who produce the funds. I know i'll hear the cry babying on that proposal, I know, I know the Hungarian Partridge Hunters, Deserve a bird to hunt, They bought a license...Would love to know how many are harvested, and the cost per bird... Maybe that could be another thing, Why not look into other Game programs with the idea that, if portions of funds from the "average hunters"and lets say, Mule Deer are used what benefits TO the average Hunter and Mule Deer are returned. And is it worth taking the money away from where it might benefit the Animals and Hunter who provide it. One bite at a time Nebo, One bite at a time
 
Hunters and fishermen have been against raising license fees because they feel like they are getting nickeled and dimed around every corner as it is.

On that note---these wildlife are owned and enjoyed by more than just hunters. One of my biggest beefs with the birding crowd is they sit and bash hunting, all the while asking in the awesome birding opportunities provided directly by it.

I have 2 ideas:

1- $3.3 in the state's overall budget is a drop in the bucket. Why can't the citizens of Utah share in this burden equally? They are always presenting a .003% tax rate on something, somewhere earmarked for their own pet projects. Find away for a very minimal tax earmark to generate $3.3m across the state. This would be so minute that nobody would even notice in their every day lives.

2- Stop paying Benson and Peay $400,000 (and increasing each year) for wolves and sage grouse when they don't do crap. Stop authorizing $4m+ just to begin a lawsuit to "reclaim" federal lands that even one of the leaders of the movement acknowledged yesterday is a loser of a case. (Side bar- doesn't "reclaim" mean you had possession at one point?)

Nebo, option 2 just immediately got your $3.3m and put $1.1m in next year's rainy day fund without changing anything.
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-14-16 AT 08:20AM (MST)[p]Thanks for your replies. The State legislature sets the cost of the license fees, in hand of course with the DWR's request. Also, my feeling is that increasing taxes for "wildlife" would be a tough political battle. UDOT is working with the DWR to improve fencing to keep wildlife off the roads which not only saves animals but protects the traveling public. A few years ago Arizona was sued because of wildlife/vehicle collision-- only a matter of time before it happens here I suppose. Wildlife crossings (overpasses/underpasses)cost in the multimillions of dollars and you just can't dump them onto someones private property on the other side of the highway during the winter.It would be interesting to see how a fee and/or a tax on non-consumptive wildlife user would work. I think there would be a major push back if something like that was put in place.
I was thinking that maybe a small increase say $5 and earmarked specifically for habitat acquisition etc) in license costs coupled with the reduction in the number of Expo/conservation tags would be a good place to start- maybe reduce them by 25% and put them back into the general draw. No matter what though, we are still going to have to pay someone to conduct draws and help raise money for wildlife enhancement projects. The conservation groups and the Expo venues could still be a part and help create an enthusiasm for what we all enjoy--but maybe the fund raising needs to be shifted little from those venues and back onto those of us who enjoy wildlife and the outdoors.
 
Yall need to be very careful suggesting that non-hunters, even anti-hunters, should have to pay a tax for wildlife. They can and will use that as footing to limit spending on hunting. Once we make our problems their problems we could be placed at their mercy.

If a politician has a choice in cutting spending between hunting which effects a minority constituency and even something very minor for a majority constituency the minority will lose almost every time. We are a minority.
 
Figure we need to come up with about
3 million to offset this totally.

If we went conservatively and cut the wealth tags in half we'd need about 1.5 mill.

Now if RMEF had the Expo Tag Contract we'd have that 750K.

This is before any type of habitat stamp or asking non consumptives to kick in a cent.

Politically, y'all may hate the boogeyman in the Whitehouse, but he deserves credit for funding a bunch of fence in Parleys. Elect people that don't play games with programs like the LWCF and so on.



"WE USED TO HUNT GAME TO
MANAGE, NOW WE MANAGE TO
HUNT"
Finn 2/14/16
 
How about a modest increase in state sales tax on designated outdoor equipment (similar to the Pittman-Robertson Act) with an expansion on the definition of outdoor equipment to include camping gear, hiking gear, rock climbing gear, ATV's and gear, optics, skis, snowboards, etc.? Of course, we'd get some blowback from those who are recreating in the outdoors without paying for the privilege, but if it were modest enough, in reality, they wouldn't notice a difference in the price of the equipment and much of it would be a one-time cost.
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-14-16 AT 11:30AM (MST)[p]While I know that there will always be needs and wants, I really like Tree's suggestion of doing a ROI analysis. Utah has been outspending its neighbors for years and what have we gotten in return? I am sure that are benefits but it would be helpful if we could quantify them. Is hunting significantly better in Utah than in surrounding states? Are our deer and elk herds any better off than in Wyoming or Colorado? After 15 years of selling hundreds of tags in the name of conservation and funding millions of dollars in conservation projects, what has been the ROI for the average sportsmen? This type of analysis/discussion would be helpful.

-Hawkeye-
 
Do we need the 3.3 million. That is not that much money really.

If we need it:
Follow the very successful waterfowl habitat restoration model.
Habitat stamps.

Get the 1000 plus tags back in the general hunting pool.

Market to youth, and try to stop the huge hunter exodus from the sport.

You are a fool if you think the current system in Utah is the best.
It is nothing more than a scam to get money in the hands of a few.
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-14-16 AT 12:33PM (MST)[p]Hawkeye- the problem with comparing us to Wyoming or Colorado is that they have much more suitable deer and elk habitat. Our elk herds are well over the agreed upon population that was set years ago which included all the stakeholders (DWR,FS, BLM, Cattlemen, Sheepmen etc.) the elk program is much much better than it was when I was growing up.
 
I agree that a tax hike, even a very minute one, would be very unpopular.

So scratch that option, and just go to option 2. Put the tags back in the public draw and stop funding a loser court case to "reclaim" public lands and other similar wasted funds the fiscal conservatives I the Utah legislature are so prone to blowing.

Then quit giving worthless money to BGF for wolves, and we're talking a net gain over several years.

Easy solution!
 
I keep seeing people say put tags into the general hunting pool or draw. There is no way in the world that would do anything whatsoever to help a deficit and in fact increases the gap.


Fighting over who gets to kill the last deer doesn't solve the issue of which one of you isn't willing to pay to do it.
 
Richard-

Thanks for the response. I acknowledge those differences. My point is merely that if Utah is going to issue more Convention Permits than all western states combined, and then turn around and issue another 200 Expo Tags in the name of conservation, at some point you have to ask what is the public's return on that investment? Are the millions of conservation dollars dumped into Utah increasing opportunity for average sportsmen? Could the conservation dollars be used more efficiently/effectively? How are other states funding their conservation efforts? Is hunting in Utah any better than the surrounding states that are not using the "Utah Model"? What is so different in Utah that requires this massive allocation of public tags?

These are some of the questions that should be asked.

-Hawkeye-
 
I have a question then Hawkeye. Define opportunity here for everyone. When does opportunity become a snowballs chance? Everybody talks about "opportunity" but no one defines it, just gives their opinion of how it feels to them.

The simple fact is everyone's differing opinion of "opportunity" and managing for it is the biggest thing standing in the way of real conservation and wildlife management.

It is time to quit walking the fine line between opportunity and failure and actually start managing for each tag to be a dead deer, period.
 
We could talk all day and write a treatise about what constitutes "opportunity" but in that particular post I am simply asking that we consider whether the tags taken out of the public draw in the name of "conservation" were resulting in increased opportunities for the general public. What is the net result to the public?

-Hawkeye-
 
Opportunity is in the eye of the beholder. Is it a more than a 50/50 opportunity to kill a mature deer or is it an opportunity to kill any age of deer?
Using money raised from conservation tags or Expo tags to improve habitat will take up to 10 years or more to know if that work improves wildlife populations. Its a long term best guesstimate thing done with the best available biology at the time.
I guess at this point the "net result" is still in the "wait and see" stage. Mother Nature is the big gorilla in the room in regards to what the habitat will eventually support. The DWR folks are doing their very best to make things turn in a positive direction with the money they have available to accomplish what they believe will pay the best dividends for wildlife and sportsmen down the road. Certainly, cutting tag numbers could yield some immediate results in deer populations over the next few years-- but , away goes the "opportunity". The are trying to balance the social element (wants and "needs") with the healthy wildlife populations.
 
No matter how stacked the odds are, one will never be able to score from the bench.

Eliminating buck deer tags does nothing for long term population. The ruse is that hunting is necessary to subjugate healthy wildlife populations. I would suggest that the only plausible necessary or positive role hunters play in wildlife management is giving a ##### about the animals, making our own selfish interest one of keeping wildlife flourishing.

That is enough by my standards, but the only way this is maintained is by recruiting more hunters, not less. Less tags = less hunters = less support = no hunting.

Beyond that the need and measurable results should be the dictating factor on if and where we spend "conservation" money. Show the net gain, analyze the impact. If $100,000 is yielding a net result of 150 deer, that's a bad investment. Until then the original question is moot. Find the reason then find the money. Don't just raise money for the sake of raising it, then look for places to spend it.
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-16-16 AT 12:35PM (MST)[p]The answer to that Hawkeye is that there is no change to "opportunity" when all you do is change the distribution method of the tag but the tag numbers stay the same. Supply is the same, and demand hasn't changed.

When you ask for "net" are you talking about dollars or numbers of tags. Because the number of tags going to the public hasn't changed a bit.

Tree,

if your equation in your post were true we would be screwed and none of us could consider ourselves conservationists. Luckily there are far more variables than you included.
 
Good points, Rich.

So it take up to a 10-years to know if that work improves wildlife populations? Do you know how long Utah has been cranking out the conservation permits? Seems like we starting ramping up in the 90's and we were doing major projects through the late 90's adn 2000's. I would guess that we shoud start seeing some significant returns from those habitat projects. I would not keep pumping money into a particular stock or mutual fund without carefully examining its historical returns along the way.

-Hawkeye-
 
Rich the DWR said 20 years ago we will reap the bennefits of today. Now your saying give it ANOTHER ten years? Mother nature has a lot more to do with our deer success than throwing more $ at it.
 
Wrong again, Tristate. I was asking whether the habitat projects funded with the conservation dollars raised over the last 20 years had resulted in increased opportunity for the general public. Thanks for trying.

-Hawkeye-
 
Hawkeye,

Your a smartass and a liar.

This is what you wrote and what I answered to.

"We could talk all day and write a treatise about what constitutes "opportunity" but in that particular post I am simply asking that we consider whether the tags taken out of the public draw in the name of "conservation" were resulting in increased opportunities for the general public. What is the net result to the public?"

At no point whatsoever did you say the words "habitat projects" or even allude to them. If you are going to crawfish don't be a smartass doing it.
 
Okydoky. I see the problem here. For some reason you have been lead to believe my name is Richard. My name is Ben.
 
>Okydoky. I see the problem
>here. For some reason
>you have been lead to
>believe my name is Richard.
> My name is Ben.
>


Thanks for clarifying Richard.
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-16-16 AT 06:28PM (MST)[p]>LAST EDITED ON Mar-11-16
>AT 11:19?AM (MST)
>
>Do any of you have any
>good ways to raise the
>money needed to get wildlife
>enhancement projects funded and paid
>for? Really looking for ways
>to accomplish that--- NOT complaints
>about the current system.


What kind of public university research programs are there to possibly add donations & couple with [potential] grants?

(Being serious, I know what options are here with the schools, but not sure about out that way.)
 
Going back to the point Tree brought up, I would love to see a financial analysis of this program.

Are we buying $500.00 toilet seats here??



"If the DWR was just doing its job, and
wildlife and hunting were the actual focus,
none of this process would even matter.
But that is not the focus or the goal in any
of this. The current DWR regime, and
SFW were born out of wildlife declines,
and are currently operated and funded
under that paradigm. Those 200 Expo
tags would not even be worth anything if
the focus was where it was supposed to
be, and wildlife and tags were plentiful.
But under the current business model,
that is how the money and power is
generated. It is generated through the
rising "value"(monitization) of a declining
resource. A resource that is supposed to
be being beneficially managed for the
masses that own that resource, ie. US.
The problem is obvious, hedging is not a
long term sustainable strategy, and
others have to lose, for some to win. In
this case it is us, the many, and our
resources, that are being forced to lose,
because there is a minority who's power
and money is derived from our loses."

LONETREE 3/15/16
 
Hawkeye, has conservation tags done anything to increase hunting opportunity? I think so. That was the money used to put buffalo on the book cliffs. New hunt. When conservation tags first started there were two sheep tags, 1 rocky, 1 desert. Now with conservation money and transplants look what we have. Increased number of elk. The man goat where we had I think 1 tag or 0 tags. This is because of the conservation tag money. Is hunting in Utah better? It is getting harder to draw tags but then two years ago the dwr stated 357,000 people put in for limited entry tags. Lots of applicants for the tags. Is that because Utah hunting is in demand? I think so. We are a growing state that with growing city's we are pushing wildlife out of where they lived. I think it is remarkable we have been able to grow herds like we have.
 
Yes, I understand that we are driving up demand for LE/OIL tags and frankly the entire state is moving toward the LE model. My question is simply what has been net effect of those millions of dollars in projects on the average sportsman who wants to hunt each year. Most of sportsmen will never draw a Utah sheep tag in our timetimes (unless they get lucky at Don's full curl event) but they want to hunt deer each year with friends and family. This all goes back to my initial question of since we have allcoated more $ tags then all other western states combined what has been the ROI for sportsmen? You post touches on the very, very tip of the iceburg but we should do a much more throrough analysis.

-Hawkeye-
 
So hawk, what is your remedy? The conservation tags have provided more hunting for the average sportsman. The fact that more and more people are putting in for tags is who's fault. The conservation program? True deer tags have been cut. We went from close to a million deer down to 300,000. Should we continue over the counter tags for all? Do we have the deer to go around? It is funny how people complain about all the hunters in their areas hunting yet we want more tags that will increase hunters. Our family goes deer hunting every year. Not all have tags but we can still go out and enjoy the camp and fun. I haven't hunted deer in 7 years but still go out and have been with family members when they are successfull. Just because a person does not have a tag doesn't mean they can't go out on the deer hunt and have a great time.
 
Bird-

I don't have a remedy yet because I don't what the problem is or if there even is a problem. That is why I suggested doing a detailed analysis of the money generated, the projects funded and the resulting impact (+ or -) on sportsmen. We should also look at what other states are doing to fund their conservation projects and how their herds are fairing in comparison to ours. As I said before, nobody with brains would continue to pump money into a particiular mutual fund without carefully analyzing and reanalyzing the returns for that fund. Perhaps this is already happening. I am aware of the annual audits of the Conservation Permit program but they do not look at the resulting impacts on herds and opportunity for sportsmen.

-Hawkeye-
 
Hawkeye,

You are asking a question which can never be answered. It can be debated eternally but no one will ever be able to give you an answer. First of all the state wildlife agencies don't segregate expenditures being linked specifically to one type of dollar or another. Second even if they started doing that they can not compare with certainty this dollar outperformed this other dollar. If the deer herds rebound critics can say its not because of money its because of "_______". When deer herds fall the critics can say look it is failing will proponents can say it would have been worse without the dollars.

We can not give finite answers to questions in a field of science which is anything but exact.
 
Obviously it affects sportsmen. It makes it harder to draw. That is why all the transplants are going on to boost new herds and hopefully more permits for sportsmen. As long as people keep applying for permits, the problem will continue. Who do we cut out. We are loosing the youth in hunting and fishing. If we don't retain youth we loose hunting in the future. I know people are unhappy. I catch it all the time.
I guess we could raise rates for hunting but then that cuts out sportsmen that can't afford it. The continuance of habitat and new herds is the only way I see.
 
TriTip, the question can absolutely be answered and must be measured.

Why would sportsmen be content to sacrifice for decades for a mangy ram that is available to 1 public hunter and a bidder??




"If the DWR was just doing its job, and
wildlife and hunting were the actual focus,
none of this process would even matter.
But that is not the focus or the goal in any
of this. The current DWR regime, and
SFW were born out of wildlife declines,
and are currently operated and funded
under that paradigm. Those 200 Expo
tags would not even be worth anything if
the focus was where it was supposed to
be, and wildlife and tags were plentiful.
But under the current business model,
that is how the money and power is
generated. It is generated through the
rising "value"(monitization) of a declining
resource. A resource that is supposed to
be being beneficially managed for the
masses that own that resource, ie. US.
The problem is obvious, hedging is not a
long term sustainable strategy, and
others have to lose, for some to win. In
this case it is us, the many, and our
resources, that are being forced to lose,
because there is a minority who's power
and money is derived from our loses."

LONETREE 3/15/16
 
Wiley,

I obviously don't smoke the stuff you do.

Why don't you post up that equation once you find it.
 
TriTip I'm going to give you a chance to back off your ill informed post about tracking expenditure dollars.

Ya may want to rephrase or rethink that idiocy.




"If the DWR was just doing its job, and
wildlife and hunting were the actual focus,
none of this process would even matter.
But that is not the focus or the goal in any
of this. The current DWR regime, and
SFW were born out of wildlife declines,
and are currently operated and funded
under that paradigm. Those 200 Expo
tags would not even be worth anything if
the focus was where it was supposed to
be, and wildlife and tags were plentiful.
But under the current business model,
that is how the money and power is
generated. It is generated through the
rising "value"(monitization) of a declining
resource. A resource that is supposed to
be being beneficially managed for the
masses that own that resource, ie. US.
The problem is obvious, hedging is not a
long term sustainable strategy, and
others have to lose, for some to win. In
this case it is us, the many, and our
resources, that are being forced to lose,
because there is a minority who's power
and money is derived from our loses."

LONETREE 3/15/16
 
You can't track per $ value when mother nature screws up your baseline on an annual basis. She wins regardless of money spent.
 
Tx, we know tons of deer are killed on highways. If I remember right more deer are killed on highways than hunters. Problem with that is highway deer are bucks, does, and fawns. Hunting is mainly bucks.
The other thing is predators. Both coyotes and lions. Even bear are hard on the fawns. Those issues are being addressed.
 
No let's let Wiley show us how the state measures effectiveness of dollars spent and this mythical "net" that has been mentioned here.

How much money is a rain drop worth. How many dollars is one mule deer doe worth and what is the acceptable number for dollars spent for one mule deer doe.

Then here is the killer. How do you calculate a net for a living being who reproduces continuously over years?

How do you calculate a net on a herd YOU CAN'T GET A SOLID NUMBER ON?

How do you get a net . When no one can even decide how many years you go back for expenditures? All those dollars spent before the conservation tag dollars have just as much effect on the present and the future. You don't get to start with an empty garden or a clean slate.

Then money you spent on a project 15 years ago and ten miles away effect the "net" you wish you could calculate here and now.

DO YOU EVEN REALIZE HOW FLAWED A DEER SURVEY IS? Quite frankly they suck. And you think you can use any of this to calculate a "net".

The truth is Dr Doolittle ain't real and you can't get exact numbers remotely close enough to ever think you can get a "net" calculation of your wildlife.
 
TriTip said

"First of all the state wildlife agencies don't segregate expenditures being linked specifically to one type of dollar or another."

Still wanna turn me loose turtle stuffer??




"If the DWR was just doing its job, and
wildlife and hunting were the actual focus,
none of this process would even matter.
But that is not the focus or the goal in any
of this. The current DWR regime, and
SFW were born out of wildlife declines,
and are currently operated and funded
under that paradigm. Those 200 Expo
tags would not even be worth anything if
the focus was where it was supposed to
be, and wildlife and tags were plentiful.
But under the current business model,
that is how the money and power is
generated. It is generated through the
rising "value"(monitization) of a declining
resource. A resource that is supposed to
be being beneficially managed for the
masses that own that resource, ie. US.
The problem is obvious, hedging is not a
long term sustainable strategy, and
others have to lose, for some to win. In
this case it is us, the many, and our
resources, that are being forced to lose,
because there is a minority who's power
and money is derived from our loses."

LONETREE 3/15/16
 
It is really simple. If the DWR wants to raise a huge pile of money, just put all available big game tags up for bids. Instead of submitting an application, you would submit a bid. Give all the tags to the highest bidders.

If you want a tag really bad, you bid high. (Look how much people are willing to cough up for a chance at a non-res Wyoming general season tag for example). If you don't care much or don't have much cash, submit a low bid and hope for the best.

Then simply take all the money raised in excess of the current fee system and use it for wildlife conservation. As all the conservation projects create more and more game, then more and more tags can be issued and reaping higher and higher prices so more and more money will be raised.

Having a few more super premium units and tags like Antelope Island tags would increase the take enormously.

I know, this would eliminate the low ability/low gumption/low achievement welfare queen type crowd from hunting, but what the hay, something has to give.
 
I could get behind something like that bugleb? Expand on that and you may have a pretty good wildlife plan.
 
Why am I not surprised that the troll would go for that stupid idea that is as far from what the NAM stands for as I've ever heard! I wonder if that post was made by the DON using an alias!
 
Conservation permit funds are tracked to the dollar, by project, by group,by expense per activity per project.

They can tell you exactly what X org spent to run a harrow on blind bill wash project.

They can tell you exactly how much seed was purchased to reseed every inch of Draper that burned a couple of years back.

SFW will account to the cent what they've spent on the Monroe study.

Most of these orgs return proceeds from their banquets to be spent on that local committee's pet project. These local committees want their share and know exactly what they earn.

There are several funds where the UTDWR draws its money. Restricted accounts and about %9 general funds.

Now this is big game.

Let me share a little story about one of the best Biologists / managers on this planet.

Farmington Bay WMA, one of the best places on this planet for waterfowl. Absolutely over run with phragmities. Several hundred acres of hunt able marsh lost. Spraying went on every year. It killed the crap but there was never a day where a burn permit was approved. Year after year there was no gain in habitat.

Knowing that a burn permit was unlikely and spraying was expensive this biologist had the guts to actually use his head.

Turns out cattle love phrag. A few dozen head of cattle cleaned that marsh up in months where over a decade of spray and pray for a burn permit didn't return an inch. Irony of this, there is dedicated funding for the Great Salt Lake Soverign Lands management entity. Forestry, Fire and State Lands. They have a dedicated fund set for phrag abatement for non WMA areas on the lakes shoreline. Well a couple years back a legislative douchebag from Kanab made an attempt to raid this fund to pass it on to..... You got it a wolf lobbyist.

The issue was dealt with promptly.

So to hear that there is no way to develop quantifiable measuring sticks for this funding is absolute Horsecrap.

Are we spending money on feel good coyote abatement programs that have never in history had one word of peer reviewed data that supports their effectiveness?? Are we sure that we are using the right kind of brush starts for the right area? Are we pissing away money transplanting moose in southern Utah where they have historically been proven as unviable?? Are we transplanting goats on the Lasalles when we know the enviro's are going to file suit to have them removed so they don't damage a flower?
Are we paying fair prices for seed, bitterbrush starts and heavy equipment or are we repaying a political favor by hiring a politicians brother at a higher rate.

Peay's latest deal is Utah as the Serengeti of the west for big game.

Compare big game management with SFW influence / philosophy to Waterfowl management with absolutely zero SFW stench and let me know which group is farther ahead.




"If the DWR was just doing its job, and
wildlife and hunting were the actual focus,
none of this process would even matter.
But that is not the focus or the goal in any
of this. The current DWR regime, and
SFW were born out of wildlife declines,
and are currently operated and funded
under that paradigm. Those 200 Expo
tags would not even be worth anything if
the focus was where it was supposed to
be, and wildlife and tags were plentiful.
But under the current business model,
that is how the money and power is
generated. It is generated through the
rising "value"(monitization) of a declining
resource. A resource that is supposed to
be being beneficially managed for the
masses that own that resource, ie. US.
The problem is obvious, hedging is not a
long term sustainable strategy, and
others have to lose, for some to win. In
this case it is us, the many, and our
resources, that are being forced to lose,
because there is a minority who's power
and money is derived from our loses."

LONETREE 3/15/16
 
Wow Wiley you put all that effort into the dumbest post I may have ever seen on here.

You actually used a migratory species as an example for your argument. A species which the state certainly can't calculate a net. They breed somewhere else. You are attracting individuals from other areas so that isn't a net.

What you are talking about is budgets and that ain't what I am talking about. I amtalking about tracking and segregating each dollar. You may be able to tell how much money got spent on a prescribed burn but you can't segregate the dollars that got eaten by a cow an elk or a deer. Therefore you ain't getting a net.
 
>Absolutely nothing in his idea violates
>the "NAM".

Probably not in your convoluted mind if you even know what the NAM stands for! It certainly doesn't stand for the richest buying wildlife tags and shutting those out that can't afford exorbitant fees.
 
WW....there are quite a few on here who understood your point. It's a shame others actually don't try to understand where you're trying to go. From those on here arguing tooth and nail and completely being naive, narrow minded etc.....are usually the ones defending SFW and the DWR.






Theodore Roosevelt's guidance concerning
conservation...
"The movement for the conservation of wildlife,
and the conservation of all our natural resources,
are essentially democratic in spirit,purpose and
method."

"We do not intend that our natural resources shall
be exploited by the few against the interests of the
majority. Our aim is to preserve our natural
resources for the public as a whole, for the
average man and the average woman who make
up the body of the American people."

"It is in our power...to preserve game..and to give
reasonable opportunities for the exercise of the
skill of the hunter,whether he is or is not a man of
means."
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-17-16 AT 10:07PM (MST)[p]Ducked like a true pseudo intellectual.

Bravo. You are in over your waders.

Habitat work that you get for free from a few dozen cattle will free up the funding for the recently finished Keith Fullencamp unit that will do what numbnutz?? That's right attract more game and keep them here longer. Pretty sure this efficient approach works in big game as well.

Now on to your next point. I'm not gonna bother cutting and pasting your exact words cause you'll just duck them like you did with your last direct quote.

Tritip, you and I actually agree on this in reverse. You see this like you see everything, $$$$$. I see this from a management standpoint. In Utah every LE game species with the exception of maybe turkeys that has a wealth tag is managed for the benefit of that wealth tag and maximum bonus point holders. Probably the two smallest groups of hunters in Utah.

I agree if you want to quantify the results of this funding you'd need long term analysis of habitat and herd populations that could show several years of each kind of environment and disaster data. We have that as well as most other western states. There is a barometer to base this on.

Now that we are in agreement on these expenditures can you please explain to me that why after 22 years of this philosophy we are still managing for the two smallest demographics of hunters?

Also following this same theory, why does the Orgs and the DWR and the Legislature keep spraying the phrag instead of wising up and letting a few free cattle loose?? That was a metaphor TriTip, I didn't mean it literally.

But the question needs to be asked, are we kept on this inefficient, go nowhere path by SFW and all the other tag whores??




"If the DWR was just doing its job, and
wildlife and hunting were the actual focus,
none of this process would even matter.
But that is not the focus or the goal in any
of this. The current DWR regime, and
SFW were born out of wildlife declines,
and are currently operated and funded
under that paradigm. Those 200 Expo
tags would not even be worth anything if
the focus was where it was supposed to
be, and wildlife and tags were plentiful.
But under the current business model,
that is how the money and power is
generated. It is generated through the
rising "value"(monitization) of a declining
resource. A resource that is supposed to
be being beneficially managed for the
masses that own that resource, ie. US.
The problem is obvious, hedging is not a
long term sustainable strategy, and
others have to lose, for some to win. In
this case it is us, the many, and our
resources, that are being forced to lose,
because there is a minority who's power
and money is derived from our loses."

LONETREE 3/15/16
 
Bird they quit transplanting from Cache to Manti and fishlake in the late 80's.




"If the DWR was just doing its job, and
wildlife and hunting were the actual focus,
none of this process would even matter.
But that is not the focus or the goal in any
of this. The current DWR regime, and
SFW were born out of wildlife declines,
and are currently operated and funded
under that paradigm. Those 200 Expo
tags would not even be worth anything if
the focus was where it was supposed to
be, and wildlife and tags were plentiful.
But under the current business model,
that is how the money and power is
generated. It is generated through the
rising "value"(monitization) of a declining
resource. A resource that is supposed to
be being beneficially managed for the
masses that own that resource, ie. US.
The problem is obvious, hedging is not a
long term sustainable strategy, and
others have to lose, for some to win. In
this case it is us, the many, and our
resources, that are being forced to lose,
because there is a minority who's power
and money is derived from our loses."

LONETREE 3/15/16
 
Thanks Billy, I tried to dumb it down as much as possible for him.




"If the DWR was just doing its job, and
wildlife and hunting were the actual focus,
none of this process would even matter.
But that is not the focus or the goal in any
of this. The current DWR regime, and
SFW were born out of wildlife declines,
and are currently operated and funded
under that paradigm. Those 200 Expo
tags would not even be worth anything if
the focus was where it was supposed to
be, and wildlife and tags were plentiful.
But under the current business model,
that is how the money and power is
generated. It is generated through the
rising "value"(monitization) of a declining
resource. A resource that is supposed to
be being beneficially managed for the
masses that own that resource, ie. US.
The problem is obvious, hedging is not a
long term sustainable strategy, and
others have to lose, for some to win. In
this case it is us, the many, and our
resources, that are being forced to lose,
because there is a minority who's power
and money is derived from our loses."

LONETREE 3/15/16
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-18-16 AT 04:58AM (MST)[p]Wiley my friend you are completely lost.

How does attracting waterfowl to a body of water change your "net"?


The other part of this that cracks me up is people who don't want to capitalize wildlife but want wildlife managers to calculate "nets" for them.
 
If numbers are involved there is a sum.

Carry on.




"If the DWR was just doing its job, and
wildlife and hunting were the actual focus,
none of this process would even matter.
But that is not the focus or the goal in any
of this. The current DWR regime, and
SFW were born out of wildlife declines,
and are currently operated and funded
under that paradigm. Those 200 Expo
tags would not even be worth anything if
the focus was where it was supposed to
be, and wildlife and tags were plentiful.
But under the current business model,
that is how the money and power is
generated. It is generated through the
rising "value"(monitization) of a declining
resource. A resource that is supposed to
be being beneficially managed for the
masses that own that resource, ie. US.
The problem is obvious, hedging is not a
long term sustainable strategy, and
others have to lose, for some to win. In
this case it is us, the many, and our
resources, that are being forced to lose,
because there is a minority who's power
and money is derived from our loses."

LONETREE 3/15/16
 
"If numbers are involved there is a sum."

Holy Cow.......

For a net you need to calculate DIFEEEEEREEEENCE.
 
We can strap a rocket to a camera, blast it off and fly it a few hundred billion miles compensate for delays in command, orbital pull and space junk the size of a grain of sand and still manage to get that picture of Pluto.

We can jam a bunch of plastic, silicone, copper and gold together and make it possible for a armadillo stuffing glue sniffer from Texas to spread BS on an entity known as the Internet.

Yet the one unsolvable equation with no satisfactory plus or minus sum turns out to be is there more deer and elk eating a specific plant on a specific range in a specific set of environmental variables and what the net cost per mouth is at that exact moment in time and what either the positive or negative investment per mouth is.

Gotcha!!

Google Kent Hersey TriTip.




"If the DWR was just doing its job, and
wildlife and hunting were the actual focus,
none of this process would even matter.
But that is not the focus or the goal in any
of this. The current DWR regime, and
SFW were born out of wildlife declines,
and are currently operated and funded
under that paradigm. Those 200 Expo
tags would not even be worth anything if
the focus was where it was supposed to
be, and wildlife and tags were plentiful.
But under the current business model,
that is how the money and power is
generated. It is generated through the
rising "value"(monitization) of a declining
resource. A resource that is supposed to
be being beneficially managed for the
masses that own that resource, ie. US.
The problem is obvious, hedging is not a
long term sustainable strategy, and
others have to lose, for some to win. In
this case it is us, the many, and our
resources, that are being forced to lose,
because there is a minority who's power
and money is derived from our loses."

LONETREE 3/15/16
 
Wiley,

The difference is living ecosystems with undefined borders and non living machines. One is exact and the other barely partially understood.

Hawkeye,

There ain't a wildlife net that can be calculated. Sorry.
 
Ok--- As I understand it-- The habitat projects have and are producing more suitable browse- "groceries"-- for wildlife. As to whether it is actually helping higher survival rates and thus increase deer populations is not a clear picture. Weather has a lot to do with it. More moisture means better growth but if it comes in the form of deeper snows then the animals may not survive it to take advantage of the better forage. It seems to me that it is not an exact science, but it seems as though the best science is being used to help give wildlife a "better" chance of flourishing. I believe that the habitat projects have and will help. No doubt some projects end up not being that helpful but how can you measure exactly the consequences to wildlife if habitat projects weren't done? I'm sure that there are times when wildlife managers look back on projects and think "well that ended up being a bust and a waste of time and money". But I honestly believe it was done to benefit wildlife in a positive way.
Some practices like stamping out wildfires have actually been shown to be detrimental to wildlife. So now fire is being used in some cases to actually provide a positive long term positive affect on wildlife.
I do believe that the money raised and used for habitat projects has helped and will help. The only real question is, how is the best way to raise that money and do that in a way that helps the majority of the hunting population as well as the enhancement of our wildlife.
 
Hey WW! You made my day in the first five minutes when I got on here and read this sentence of yours: "We can jam a bunch of plastic, silicone, copper and gold together and make it possible for an armadillo stuffing glue sniffer from Texas to spread BS on an entity known as the Internet." That has to go down as easily the best of the week on MM!
 
Rich-

I appreciate your willingness to engage in a discussion on this issue. I think most folks would be willing to agree to a modest increase in license/permit fees or a habitat stamp if the money was earmarked for actual conservation projects and accounted for.

What I am not comfortable with is continually increasing the number wealth tags in the name of conservation. It seems that Utah is way out in front on the slippery slope that is selling wealth tags. As I said in a prior post, there are many problems with the current model, including the gradual erosion of the NACM, the commercialization of wildlife and hunting, a lack of transparency and accountability for funds generated from those tags, the tendency to manage our wildlife based upon what maximizes the monetary value of tags instead of biology, and certain groups that using that big money process to develop too much influence and too loud of a voice.

-Hawkeye-
 
Thanks TOP, its intellectually dishonest to state as fact that there can be no barometer
for measuring effectiveness or efficiency of this funding.

It can be done.




"If the DWR was just doing its job, and
wildlife and hunting were the actual focus,
none of this process would even matter.
But that is not the focus or the goal in any
of this. The current DWR regime, and
SFW were born out of wildlife declines,
and are currently operated and funded
under that paradigm. Those 200 Expo
tags would not even be worth anything if
the focus was where it was supposed to
be, and wildlife and tags were plentiful.
But under the current business model,
that is how the money and power is
generated. It is generated through the
rising "value"(monitization) of a declining
resource. A resource that is supposed to
be being beneficially managed for the
masses that own that resource, ie. US.
The problem is obvious, hedging is not a
long term sustainable strategy, and
others have to lose, for some to win. In
this case it is us, the many, and our
resources, that are being forced to lose,
because there is a minority who's power
and money is derived from our loses."

LONETREE 3/15/16
 
>Tx, we know tons of
>deer are killed on highways.
> If I remember right
>more deer are killed on
>highways than hunters. Problem
>with that is highway deer
>are bucks, does, and fawns.
>Hunting is mainly bucks.
> The other
>thing is predators.
>Both coyotes and lions.
>Even bear are hard on
>the fawns. Those issues
>are being addressed.


What's being done about the highways? Fences? Along them is usually some of the highest quality browse they have.
 
>Yall need to be very careful
>suggesting that non-hunters, even anti-hunters,
>should have to pay a
>tax for wildlife. They
>can and will use that
>as footing to limit spending
>on hunting. Once we
>make our problems their problems
>we could be placed at
>their mercy.
>
>If a politician has a choice
>in cutting spending between hunting
>which effects a minority constituency
>and even something very minor
>for a majority constituency the
>minority will lose almost every
>time. We are a
>minority.


WTF????? Tristate, did someone hack your account. An actual thought that makes sense. Holy Shizzz. You actually are right best let that sleeping dog lie.

Now. This was the logical end to the continual tag cuts. We have lost all our power and made ourselves a minority which in turn cost us our ability to demand a bigger cut of the states budget, similar to the continual sucking sound made by the ski industry.

So I agree, the welfare for THE DON should be stopped. I know that's not much, but still.

Second, I am now driving a 2002 chev for my work truck. Its the nicest work truck I have ever driven. Amazing how when you PAY for it you don't need a new one every other year.

Third. Glad to drop $5 dollars for habitat purchase. Feel free to stamp me up, HOWEVER, NOT HABITAT FOR LE.

Forth. Let the UDWR take care of ONLY profitable species. We pay their bill, no more Utah Chub, or California Condor, or whatever. If we don't hunt it, then OUR money doesn't pay for it.

Last. The state is more than capable of auctioning off tags WITHOUT the "conservation groups". Keep the 200 tags, set up an online bid site, same as Gun Broker or Gun Auction or EBAY. I am pretty sure old Denny Austad will scratch checks without Lee Greenwood singing to him. Have a bunch of tags that the conservation groups can bid on for their banquets. NO MORE $286 tags that they can then auction for 6 figures. Let them bid for them, the profit go for land purchases 100%.

We have WAY TO MANY hands out that WE sportsman feed. From the fraud that is BGF and $fw, all the way down to the decent ones at RMEF and DU. Sorry fellas, but we need to close the EBT window. If they want tags, let them bid. Let them run the prices up.

WOW, TRITIP made a perfectly logical and well thought out post, GOOD LARD!!!


"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun"
 
Anybody notice the huge foot print that the solar industry is putting down on habitat all over the west?

That foot print is soon to surpass that of oil and mining combined if it continues at its present rate.

I would say squeeze some money out of them if it were not a fact that we as tax payers are all ready paying the solar industry's way,,,by way of government handouts.
 

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

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

CB9C279F-DBC8-4AAF-B42B-F65B8A9EA82A.jpeg
South Dakota.jpg
7D70A91A-E54E-4014-8AEB-632E485F638A.jpeg
11F93D75-DB1E-466A-9165-2732923A67C1.jpeg
A05C23A0-C9F1-4C73-A3AC-549650CC563C.jpeg
fullsizeoutput_1e.jpeg
116 copy copy.jpg
Beast Buck
30B2E2C0-D008-4779-9383-A83DE6CFD133.jpeg
96F49153-F79A-4E0D-906E-22ED799B162D.jpeg
HUNT3894.JPG
20230619_235700.jpg
Back
Top Bottom