FUNDING CONSERVATION

MulePacker

MulePacker

Active Member
Messages
513
To follow through on a good idea from another post, I thought I would start a thread to explore and brainstorm options. In an effort to accentuate the positive try not to discuss methods you do not believe work. However, if you beleive a method is working and would be a benefit to the discussion let's discuss it. Please do a liitle homework so we can get a good understanding of the revenue produced or the accomplishments of the program.
More importantly let's see if we can come up with something out of the box.

Travis Sparks
 
This may sound simplistic, but why not just raise the cost of tags for everyone? We all spend more on gear than we do tags anyway, why not just put $20 or $30 of that towards tag costs. I would happily spend $30 more on a tag IF there was a full accounting given on the end results of the price increase. Might weed out some of the bottom feeder lowlifes that I run into every fall who just hunt because they want to shoot something. Just an opinion.

Good idea for a thread.

Andy
 
I like a couple alternatives, which pertain to Utah:

1- Habitat stamp, where all monies are earmarked for habitat conservation or improvements. I was told by the DWR that Utah sells approximately 140,000 hunting permits and approximately 250,000 fishing licenses to different individuals. If we figure a $5 habitat stamp for each license sold there could be approximately $1.9 million + the Federal Matching Monies from the Pittman-Robertson Act. (I am not sure what the actual match is). We could see more monies generated from a stamp then the current conservation tags generate.

2- Have only statewide Governor's tags at 1 per species (matched by a sportsman's tag) and 1 auction tag per unit for deer, elk, and antelope (If the unit gives more than say 10 tags). That would equate to 12 Governor's tags and approximately 40 unit tags. The Governor's Tags bring in approximately $450,000 and the other tags, because of the lower supply and higher demand, could generate an additional $500,000-1,000,000. Add in the perceived increase in public tags and it could generate additional monies from public tag increases.

3- Lobby government, even pay someone to lobby, to reduce the extreme expansion of development on critical winter range. When a developer purchases large tracts of land at a reduced prices because the lands are zoned 1 house per 50 acres there is no reason to allow them to simply change the zoning. Once the zoning is changed, they reap the extreme monetary benefits. The rancher who sold the ground does not receive the benefit. Have a lobbyist at every planning commission meeting where the development of critical zoned lands is proposed.

These are rough and jagged ideas, but they could reduce the tags leaving the public draws by over 500 per year. It would generate comparable, if not more, funds and return the tags to the public. It would also allow for MORE tags which are sold and generate more funding while allowing more people to enjoy their resource.
 
Andy, no disrespect intended towards you, but raising tag costs is the very WORST thing we can do for hunting/conservation IMHO. If we price "bottom feeders" out of the sport, then we will need to increase fees again to makeup the lost revenue, then we will lose MORE hunters, so we will need to raise fees again, lose MORE hunters, raise fees, lose hunting altogether. Whatever 'ideas' we come up with, we need to keep the costs as low as possible to keep the 'average joe' hunting.

I think we as sportsmen/conservationists need to be more active in politics, this will get the government to slow down the development of critical habitat. That alone will go along way toward conservation. This starts at the grassroot levels; city, county, state, and federal levels need conservation/hunter friendly politicans.

I heard a suggestion for requiring X number of hours before being issued a hunting license. 10 hours of DWR approved work would help reduce costs for the DWR, enabling them to spend money on habitat.

PRO
 
No offense taken. I like the service idea, but I don't know how we can expect money saved to be used in a responsible manner. I agree with the concept that the government should step up to the plate here with some serious funds. Maybe the stamp idea with the gov matching the $$ is the way to get that money.

Andy
 
LAST EDITED ON Jun-19-07 AT 08:25PM (MST)[p]I think Packout has some great ideas.

I know this one wouldn't be very popular and reminds me of something a liberal would come up with, but here goes.

What about a tax on the amount conservation tags sell for.

This could be covered by the individual purchasing the tag or even the group selling the tags..........

A habitat tax that is 100% committed to general season deer and elk units that the majority of Utahn's use-not just the high profile LE units.....

It would have to be a substantial tax, but the guys that donate so much of their money to purchase these conservation tags would surely want to help out our general units.....

That ought to raise some eyebrows;)
 
Vote # 3 for 'Packout' great logic and idea's Mike.
Very simple to implement... Habitat Stamp to apply/buy/drawn per licenses... kindalike Nv does to apply...

1- 'Premium Tag' per unit-species on the Conservation tags.

AND the Con-Org'$ have to show public record of Non Profit raise moneys via banquet's and the '10%' they keep.... of all saleries/income/travel expenses/ bonuses ect...thruout the 'Paid Tier' of of these milk wagon org'$.

Then we can decide which if ANY org we even want to be a part of as members.

Robb
 
LAST EDITED ON Jun-20-07 AT 08:13AM (MST)[p]#1 A wildlife tax for $5.00 that everyone in Utah has to pay. That way sportsman, wildlife viewers and everyone else who has a part in wildlife is able to share the burden. Yes, that included's those flying up and down the roads that hit our wildlife with the cars. They will now be giving a little back to help our herds. Sportsman should not be the one to foot the whole bill, it should be everyone in the state.

#2 A habitat stamp that gets ear marked for conservation. Is a great idea, again those funds will be able to get matched by the fed's at .75 to our dollar spent.

#3 Charge for those that go into a WMA, they are the ones to use these, so let them use their money to benefit their favorite area's. Nothing expensive, maybe $5-10 a year.

#4 Put the tag fees back to what they were and use that money for conservation. Deer tags and Elk tags went down, which is a good thing, but why not leave the prices where they were and use that money for conservation?

#5 Instead of a large amount of conservation and convention tags to be sold off. First reduce the amount of tags, and raffle them off so that EVERY one has a equal change at getting the tag. Arizona and Montana do this and bring in big money.
 
my idea of a raffle means two different things, buy all the entries that you want, or only able to buy one entry so everyone has the chance. I know that buying one chance is not against the law because we did it at the convention.
 
How much would you charge per 'raffle' ticket? In order to be 'fair' to the average joe, you would need to restrict it to ONE tag per person. How many tickets would you need to equal the amount raised for say a Pahvant rifle tag sold to the highest bidder? At $20.00 a pop, you would need 1500 people attend the banquet or what ever function the tag would be 'raffled' at. Now try and accomplish that for ONE tag, little lone 150 elk tags, plus all the other tags. I don't see that happening. That is why I like the rich guys ponying up the dough rather than us average joes. What am I missing?

You were supposed to send me your e-mail address yesterday, WTF?

PRO
 
Possible money generating ideas to fund conservation;

One of the main objectives of conservation in Utah should be habitat preservation and rehabilitation. This should involve all who in any form enjoy public grounds. The term hunters or sportsmen may need to be changed to habitat conservationists. Any habitat conserved or rehabilitated will have many uses the general public collectively may enjoy.

Critical habitat areas should be recognized and prioritized by range managers, biologists and other professionals. These projects should have an estimated procurement or rehab cost and a budget established. This should all be public information.

Special habitat stamps/taxes on any offroad vehicle, camper, boats, and yes even hunting/fishing licenses should be reqired by those that utilize public ground. This additional $5-10 per annual registration/license should be set aside for habitat aquisition or rehabilitation. A larger habitat stamp/tax should be assed outfitters/guides which profit monetarily from public lands.

Large Utah Corporations should be approached with specific conservation projects and solicited for contributions. Entities such as Energy Solutions, Kennecott, Micron, Novell, Haliburton, ect., at times do provide contributions to causes in return for tax breaks and publicity. Utah Projects could include corportation names with T.V. and newspaper coverage to provide information to the public.

Recently REAl Salt Lake brokered a deal with Government Officials to receive a multi million $$ subsidy to construct a soccer stadium. These funds to be raised from a motel/hotel tax to be paid by visitors to Utah. It may be possible to lobby state government to create a habitat conservation fund supplied by a tax susidy related to recreational tourism with defined objectives and projects with projected budgets.

A public relations campaign could be established to inform the public. When habitat projects are performed any and all should be invited to participate regardless if they are members or not of any groups. Many folks don't have a clear idea in regards to habitat depletion in Utah. Bikers, hikers, skiiers, everyone who enjoys public lands should have an interest in habitat conservtion. Seperation of hunters/non hunters should not be necessary if the final goal is habitat. Recently Draper City aquired or preserved approx. 1,000 acres in Corner Canyon to be left as natural open space. Sportsmen may not be able to hunt that area, but it will protect a critical wintering area against development.

Approach habitat conservation groups such as Trust for Public lands who charter is to preserve open space and natural habitat. TPL has funding allocated for the purchase and preservation of public land and has yearly mandated aquisitions/expenditures it needs to meet. They also utilize government funding/grants to make purchases. They specifically look at urban/city areas where growth is rapidly encroaching on open space as is the case on the Wasatch Front.

Conservation groups could continue to have fundraisers, banquets, ect. and generate habitat project funds without the conservation tags.

The original post asked for ideas out of the box. These are intended to stimulate the ieas of the original post. It seems that many on this sight are very passionate one way or the other on this issue of fund raising for conservation. It certainly does not lend well to any debate by beginning with words such as; "they are idiots, get a life, I do more than you". Common ground must be reached and come compromised made. There is strentgh in numbers and pulling in the harness only works when all horses are working together.
 
I like the idea of a Habitat Stamp. Also, all proceeds will
be used for "Habitat".

The problem I see with raising tag prices is this: Funds, IMO,
are more likely put up for debate on where to alocate the $$$.

Similar to our government suing the cigarette company in order
to fix sidewalks :)

I am all for spending more $$$$ if it is used for habitat.
 
Take all the man hours spent here on Monster Muleys spent typing about the atrocity's of certain conservation organizations.

Convert those hours into volunteer work collecting aluminum can off roadways.

Donate 6 million dollars annually to the DRW with those proceeds.

Problem solved :)
 
I don't support any additional cost, stamps, taxes or any of that nonsense. The government at both the federal and state level have demonstrated repeatedly thier inablity to properly manage fiances. Why on Gods green earth would anybody expect anything different with increased fees? It is simply another burden placed on the American taxpayer. A better system is to hold the federal and state governments accountable for their spending.
For example, the new habitat tax goes directly to fund habitat conservation programs. So lets say this new tax increases FWP managemnt capital by 10 million a year. Great we all say. Than the politicians say: "see, the money is going directly to habitat conservation." Then they go back to the capital and cut 10 million from the FWP general budget. It's a scam, they do it with lottery/education dollars all the time. There wouldn't be an increase of 10 million, because they would in turn cut the same amount and we all get scammed. So lets hear some ways w/o having the governemnt steal it from us, I'm all ears.
 
LAST EDITED ON Jun-22-07 AT 12:57PM (MST)[p]You tell us how it can be done, since your so quick to cut down idea's lets hear about your briliant plan????

There is no real solution to the problem, those problems that you stated out above happen not just with the government but also in private business.

In a perfect world we would not have to worry about funding being since it isn't I am really waiting to see your brilliant plan to raise the needed money for conservation.
 
whs, like I told you last night at archery league, I trust the private sector more than the government. Then add into the mix all the 'greens' and 'bunnyhuggers' wanting the money since it is "state money", I have little confidence in turning this all over to the DWR being as effective with the money they bring in. I also question the logic of having the 'average joes' pay for all this when we have 'rich folks' more than willing to subsidize hunting w/o pricing out a good percentage of the hunters out there.

I do respect everyones desires to 'fix' what is supposedly wrong with hunting, I don't believe there is any easy answers and I personally see these conservation tags as the best option available at this time. Come up with a cure-all that is feasible and DO-ABLE, and I'll listen. What I am seeing/hearing is not realistic IMHO.

PRO
 
I have read the posts on the other lengthy thread and watched while seeing people attack each other. To be completely honest. I am not sure which way I am leaning. I have always been a person to see the good in people/things. So, rather than slam conservation groups for their efforts and place blame on others for the decline in opportunity for the "average joe" I propose that we place the blame on ourselves for the loss of opportunity and funding of wildlife. Did you know that the funds generated from license sales is placed in a general fund of which a percentage is directed back to the DWR for use in the care of our wildlife. That's right, the same person that fights against your hunting rights has access to funds you pay for the right to hunt. Go figure that one out. I propose that we lobby our government for complete control of license funds with the same zeal that we (conservation groups)lobby for more conservation tags. Can you imagine how much money would be generated for wildlife with already existing funds? No raising of license fees and no decrease in opportunity. The money is already there folks.

The sportsman group that everyone should look at as an example for the benefit of wildlife and increased hunter opportunity is the National Wild Turkey Federation. Yes they have dipped into the conservation pool too but they were extremely successful long before tags started showing up at their banquets. I am a member of several conservation groups for one reason and one reason only, and that is to teach my kids to give back on things that they benefit from. They are members as well, and by their choice not mine. All these groups do some good. Granted there are groups that do more than others and some that are limited by funds but it gets people involved. If you are on this forum and giving your oppinion and you are not involved with wildlife conservation (you do not have to be a member of an organization, but it helps)your oppinion has no merit with me. Whether I agree with your oppinion or not, I respect it if you are active in improving wildlife conservation. There are some great posts and some that are just on here to stir the *&%$. Less than 1% of the people that hunt in Utah show up for conservation projects to volunteer their time. That tells me one thing, the majority of hunters don't care about their hunting future. I sure hope I'm wrong.

It's always an adventure!!!
 
"Did you know that the funds generated from license sales is placed in a general fund of which a percentage is directed back to the DWR for use in the care of our wildlife."

I am not trying to be the facts police, but the above statement is false. Once upon a time, many years ago the license monies went into the general fund, but that has long since been changed. Facts are that the DWR retains all license monies, federal monies, donations, etc AND the DWR receives public tax monies from the General Fund. Here is the funding statement from the DWR site:

--Restricted funds: The majority of DWR's revenue is generated from the sale of hunting and fishing licenses and permits. These funds are restricted for exclusive use by DWR and cannot be transferred to other state agencies. One hundred percent of the license dollars collected stay within the DWR to carry out the division's mission to conserve and protect the Wildlife of Utah. Funding overages or shortages are managed through an interest-bearing account maintained by the State Treasurer. Other types of funding in this category are revenues from Certificates of Registration, donations, wildlife license plates and miscellaneous fees.

---Federal funds: Each year, DWR receives federal funds for wildlife, sportfish and sensitive and endangered species. Federal funds for the wildlife and sport fish programs come from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). The DWR receives revenue allocated by the USFWS from federal excise taxes on hunting and shooting equipment and fishing equipment and motorboat fuel. Each state's allocation is based on the state's hunting and fishing license sales and land area. These funds are generally matched with state funds in the ratio of 75 percent federal to 25 percent state funds. Other federal agencies, including the Bureau of Reclamation, Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management and Department of Defense, award funds to accomplish their agency goals on a contract basis.

---General funds: General funds (tax dollars) account for only about 12 percent of DWR's annual budget. These funds are used primarily for sensitive species, law enforcement, wildlife depredation and some fish hatchery programs. Because the Legislature has indicated that the Division should not use hunting or fishing license revenue to fund nongame species management, these funds help cover the costs of nongame management.

---Wildlife Habitat Account

During the 1995 general session, the legislature created the Wildlife Habitat Account. This account provided dedicated funds to be used only for the enhancement, preservation, management, acquisition and protection of fish and wildlife habitat and for improving public access for fishing and hunting. The Wildlife Habitat Account generates about $2 million each year for projects.

Habitat Council: Project proposals originate in the field. They are then reviewed and prioritized by regional management teams and then forwarded to the Habitat Council for review and recommendation. The Division director authorizes projects, and the money to do them. This council is comprised of four Division representatives and four citizen representatives. All potential projects are brought to the Habitat Council for review. Division habitat managers present these projects, but they can originate from another agency, a landowner or any individual in Utah.

Investing in the future: The staff of the Division and the Habitat Council is excited about the Wildlife Habitat Account. From our perspective, this expanded habitat program represents an enormous opportunity, a great responsibility, and the best possible investment for the future.

The hunting and fishing public has always been willing to pay their way and has strongly supported programs designed to produce tangible results on the ground. Our commitment is to build on our successes and expand our efforts to the benefit of all wildlife habitat and citizen interests throughout the state.
 
Stop selling conservation tags. Start garnishing the wages from all the people whining about the conservation tags until an equal sum of auction tag money is raised. Buy more sheep from Colorado, Montana, Canada, Nevada. Take Mike Eastmans Doughnut money to pay for transportation of said sheep. Release in Ut. and give Nunya and the non whiners a sheep tag!
 
Thanks for the correction Packout. My kids always say that I'm behind the times. I guess they're right.

Instead of garnishing wages (they aren't touching my income unless invited) garnish a healthy percentage from membership fees going to these conservation groups. That would be a simple way to increase revenue and at the same time keep these groups involved. Then we would see just how much these groups are really concerned about conservation or their own pockets. It would also increase incentive for people to get involved with these groups. I really do believe that conservation groups are why we have hunting today. 25 years ago there was not that many elk in Utah. It is because of conservation groups that we have a very healthy heard of elk to hunt. You can't tell me otherwise. I saw the way it was before. Pro says it best, "SHOW UP or SHUT UP!" Bottom line, it's going to cost more to hunt and it's going to affect the "average Joe", whether it's from decreased opportunity and auction tags or decreased auction tags, more opportunity, and increased license costs. It costs more to hunt. 15 years ago my ammunition costs $0.35 a shot. Now it is $1.40 or more. Camo is around $80 a set. Maybe there should be a certain amount of money spent on hunting equipment set aside in the state where you purchased it for conservation in that state. We would see how many companies are concerned about conservation or how big their profit margins are. There are a lot of ways to support conservation without so many auction tags. It's a matter of like minded/passionate people getting together and making it happen.

Again, sorry fot the misinformation. I stand corrected.


It's always an adventure!!!
 
Garnish membership fees? Who? You want the government to forceable take a private organizations money? Man, you guys just don't get it. Why is everyone so quick to look to the government for refief of social and economic ills? Who does a better job with conservation management, the government or the private land owner? Was it not the fed who indroduced the stupid wolves here in Montana? Was it not the local taxpayers who had to pay Montana FWP to go eradicate a trouble pack in the big hole? Complete with helecopters and multiple employees using FWP money that could have been better spent in habitat programs. Stop considering "takings" and think of the role private citizens can play. Ask yourself why is habitat being lost? What is it being lost to? The goal should be to make land more valuable as a wildlife habitat area, then as a strip mall. Until that happens, all the "takings" and money won't matter, development will happen.
 
My idea of putting a tax on these groups and or the individuals purchasing conservation tags was more or less to get a rise of out some people;)

My simple perspective comes from a lifetime of hunting in Utah. But I've also been fortunate to have hunted 9 western states (an average of 3 states a year), and working closely with individual involved in the hunting industry in almost every western state.

Over the years I've tried to help out conservation groups whenever I could, and still do.

All this being said, and getting back to the root of all of this (conservation tags), Utah is MESSED UP!

Do we need to do away with all of them? No.
 
>Garnish membership fees? Who?
>You want the government to
>forceable take a private organizations
>money? Man, you guys
>just don't get it.
>Why is everyone so quick
>to look to the government
>for refief of social and
>economic ills? Who does
>a better job with conservation
>management, the government or the
>private land owner? Was
>it not the fed who
>indroduced the stupid wolves here
>in Montana? Was it
>not the local taxpayers who
>had to pay Montana FWP
>to go eradicate a trouble
>pack in the big hole?
> Complete with helecopters and
>multiple employees using FWP money
>that could have been better
>spent in habitat programs.
>Stop considering "takings" and think
>of the role private citizens
>can play. Ask yourself
>why is habitat being lost?
> What is it being
>lost to? The goal
>should be to make land
>more valuable as a wildlife
>habitat area, then as a
>strip mall. Until that happens,
>all the "takings" and money
>won't matter, development will happen.
>

Sorry Muley - I am not trying to offend. I actually agree with you. By all means let the private citizen do the job. The problem is, they haven't to this point without the help of the conservation groups. It's sad but true. How many would open their wallets and give freely if they weren't getting a tag out of it or their name entered to win a gun at a banquet or function. I would dare say, not many. How many private citizens would not drive their trucks or ATV's across vital winter range, and beautiful landscapes if not for laws made by your government. I would love to see the numbers of licenses sold in Utah if the limit on deer tags were removed or making the rifle hunt statewide. The point is, we have laws, lobbying groups and conservation groups in place because the average citizen can't conserve themselves. It is human nature to be selfish and wait for the other guy to conserve. I would be all for the private citizen taking the conservation bull by the horns but it's not going to happen. We need conservation groups to help get things done. All of the lobbying and the creative ways to raise funds can't be done by individual citizens. As for the garnishment of membership fees - I did not say let the government garnish the membership fees. I think that the conservation groups should voluntarily give a percentage of their membership dues to the DWR in the state that they live in. It shows the "individual citizen" that their $25-$50 mebership fees go to something other than a dutch oven banquet. Just a creative way to raise a little more "conservation" money.

Disclaimer: My statement is generalized. Please don't take offense. I do believe there are great people out there with some great ideas. I've just been raised in Utah where I have personally witnessed the decimation of a deer herd and the revitalization of an elk herd. It is my belief that if it were left up to the private citizen, we would shoot ourselves in the foot almost everytime.




It's always an adventure!!!
 
Well said Jim!

Just look at how many people SHOW UP at the RAC's. If it weren't for those 'forced' to attend for the DH hours, the buildings wouold be nearly EMPTY. That says volumes about how many are willing to sit back and let others SHOW UP, then ##### afterward about how/what they did.

As long as only a few SHOW UP, the masses get what they deserve, which is whatever those who SHOW UP say they deserve. If you don't like the way things are being done, SHOW UP, otherwise, shut up! How hard is that to comprehend? I go to the RAC's and it is the same people SHOWING UP, then the same people are bitching about things here after the ink has dried. It is easy to be a monday morning QB, it is much harder to be on the field at game time.

PRO
 

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

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

49627E96-02F9-4A8A-B9F3-C593D3FFFF17.jpeg
AEEDD507-8C5D-4D83-9586-AE03BC011BC9.jpeg
IMG_20190713_164258513.jpg
7C580D05-5D54-46C5-A2EE-2EA51E45DB63.jpeg
Colorado Buck
IMG_5190.jpeg
IMG_6957.jpeg
16577.jpeg
30445581-028E-47E0-8B35-B45DA97F2CB2.jpeg
20210921_185946.jpg
IMG_6511.JPG
20210922_200044.jpg
Back
Top Bottom