Percentage Cap ON Auction TAGS????

M

MTQuivers

Active Member
Messages
588
I think MOST sensible sportsman agree that conservation groups are needed and they do a lot of good for our state. (EVEN WITH THE RECENT CONTROVERSY) So I want to pose a question and I want EVERYONES OPPINION! THEN LET'S BAND TOGETHER. I WON'T SAY KEEP IT SHORT AND SWEET BECAUSE THAT NEVER WORKS! WHAT PERCENTAGE OF AUCTION/CONSERVATION TAGS DO YOU THINK IS FAIR? I personally am not worried about this magic number of 540 everyone is so mad about. First of all 200 of those tags come back to the average joes in the expo. Secondly SFW does not get all those tags other groups get some. SO.... HERE IS A QUESTION FOR DON and ALSO FOR all OF YOU...WHAT PERCENTAGE IS FAIR??? WE ALL AGREE THAT SFW, MDF, FNAWS, UBA, AND OTHERS DESERVE SOME TAGS AND DO LOTS OF GOOD FOR OUR STATE SO LETS NOT FOCUS ON 540 AS A NUMBER. LET'S PUT OUR HEADS TOGETHER AND COME UP WITH A FAIR PERCENTAGE AND LET'S MAKE IT HAPPEN SO EVERYONE IS HAPPY! IF WE ALL BAND TOGETHER AND PUSH FOR A PERCENTAGE CAP WE CAN MAKE IT HAPPEN!! SO I WILL BE THE FIRST TO VOTE... IF WE CAN GET THE STATE TO AGREE TO A 5-8% CAP I WOULD SUPPORT IT. That means all conservation groups combined! We can then let the state decide how to divy them up! If a certain group is doing more for wildlife then they get more tags! If a certain part of the state needs help (AI for example) then the state can choose to give more tags to them? Make it true capitalism and get a little friendly competition among all the conservation groups to see who can do the most for wildlife and then we can reward the best groups with more tags!!! REMEMBER A NUMBER MEANS NOTHING BECAUSE IF IT IS A PERCENTAGE AND THE "NUMBER" OF TAGS GOES UP THAT MEANS WE ALL WIN BECAUSE THE CONSERVATION EFFORTS ARE WORKING AND WE WILL HAVE MORE TAGS IN THE GENERAL POOL THAN BEFORE!!!! SO LET'S HEAR YOUR MAgiC NUMBER! (PERCENATGE)

Jason Yates
Basin Archery Shop
http://www.basinarcheryshop.com
5% OFF to all MonsterMuleys.com Members!!!
Discount code = monstermuleys
 
Less than 1%.

Most states have 10-20 total. So divide 10 by the total number of tags and you will have your exact percentage. Then return the 200 tags to the nonresident pool where they belong. Done.
 
1% for conservation auction tags. 0 convention tags unless they pull them from the drawing pool fairly like the 90% resident 10% non resident split.
 
I did a quick run down the other day on the conservation tags given in 2010 and the proposed tags from the DWR for the 2010 LE hunts. The Conservation Organizations are supposed to be getting 5% of the tags.

In the OIL tags they are over their 5%
For example:

Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep
4 Conservation tags and 30 public tags
The conservation organization are getting 13% of the tags

Desert Bighorn sheep
6 conservation tags and 45 public tags
Again the conservation organizations are taking about 13%

The worst example I found was the San Juan Elk Ridge premium elk hunt
1 conservation tag and 3 public tags.
That is arguably the best tag in the state for elk hunting and the conservation organizations are getting 25% of the tags.

All of the OIL tags the conservation organizations get are over 5%. EVERY SPECIES! I now these are the high dollar tags that raise money but it is disingenuous, to say the least, for the conservation groups to get 13% of the sheep tags and then take (only a guess on the real percentage) 2 % of the turkey tags. They average the numbers and say they take 5%. A turkey tag and sheep tag are not an even trade IMO.

I would start by limiting them to 5% MAX in any one hunt and any species. If there are not at least 20 tags for a hunt (i.e. the San Juan Premium hunt) that they should not get a tag!

I also think it is a little strange for the conservation organizations to be given their tags before the number of tags is set for the general public. How can they be held to 5% of an undetermined number?

Take note, I am not attacking SFW. This is a general response to conservation organizations and conservation tags.
 
"I also think it is a little strange for the conservation organizations to be given their tags before the number of tags is set for the general public. How can they be held to 5% of an undetermined number?"

I have asked that very question, still waiting for an answer.
 
How about we take our surrounding states, (Nevada, Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado, and Arizona) and add up the number of conservation tags they each give in the species Utah also offers, divide the total numbers of tags for each specie, by the number of states and limit Utah's conservation tags to no more than twice that number! That sounds pretty fair to me.

These animals can better express what I feel about Utah's present system!

Have a good one. BB

25243.jpg

7395d1.jpg

16687.jpg

6822e.jpg

5415126.jpg

915006-15-08-0541.jpg

456517.jpg

920958.jpg

3318fbm18.jpg

430sheep.jpg
 
ColoradoOak:

This is not a dig towards you because I know you don't agree with the numbers of tags either. Your previous post show that you, like me, question the conservation organization process in Utah. I did not know they were given 10% of the sheep tags. Even if they are given 10% they are now at 13%. They are not held accountable for anything. All OIL are over 5%. Does anybody know if they are supposed to be given higher numbers of OIL? Some will say that they are only a little over their 10%. I would rather see them round down in tag numbers than round up.
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-06-10 AT 10:43AM (MST)[p]SWEET Pictures! I think that this post can help alot of us see COMMON GROUND! MOST of us will agree that conservation tags are needed and helpful so all we need is a percentage cap to make everyone happy! Then the org's know what they have to work with and they can budget projects accordingly.

There is my question for SFW (remember I am Pro SFW- So can some of us ask questions too?:))
THE QUESTION IS: Don, would SFW be willing to COMMIT to a percentage cap on all conservation tags, and if so WHAT PERCENTAGE IS FAIR AND WHY????

Again healthy competition is good and if the orgs are competing for those tags then PRODUCTION goes up. We all know SFW does the most right now and they get most of the tags but if there is a cap on tags then they have to make due with what they have and use the resources accordingly.

SO WHAT IS THE FAIR PERCENTAGE OR MORE IMPORTANTLY WHAT PERCENTAGE IS BEST FOR THE FUTURE OF WILDLIFE? WHAT PERCENTAGE WOULD MAXIMIZE ALL OF OUR OPPORTUNITY?

Jason Yates
Basin Archery Shop
http://www.basinarcheryshop.com
5% OFF to all MonsterMuleys.com Members!!!
Discount code = monstermuleys
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-06-10 AT 11:19AM (MST)[p]In 2008 between SFW,MDF,RMEF, NWTF,DU,FNAWS,& UBA, they auctioned off 362 Tags. Add 200 Tags from the expo, and Utah took 562 tags from the public draw.And folks wonder why it's hard to draw a premium tag in this state. I have never been against a few permits being auctioned off but geesh.... Utah has gone way overboard. I'm scared to death to see how many tags Utah whored out in 09 and 2010.

1/2 of the current number (562) or less would be a good place to start.

The real question every sportsman should ask themselves is: has the millions of dollars generated from these tags, that has supposedly gone into habitat, increased your hunting oppurtunities and the quality of the animals you harvest.And I'm not talking about your odds of drawing a sheep tag going from 2% to 4%.
 
I think another thing that many are missing...

How many cwmu tags are issued each year?

How about landowner permits?

Combine those with the conservation permits, how many total tags are taken from the public draw???

I bet more than 5%. Utah is headed down the road of quickly becoming a "pay big to play" state. It shouldnt be a shock that drawing permits is incredibly difficult...too many give-aways.

Just sayin'....
 
Also missing in the equation is the hidden costs that the average hunter pays so the 'rich' hunter can hunt every year and take book animals. What I am referring to is the extreme rationing that is done to 1]Keep money tag prices high for 'conservation'. 2]Extremely high harvest age averages to dupe said 'rich' hunters into thinking the higher the harvest age average the higher the bulls on a given unit will score. The pressure placed on the DWR and the Wildlife Board to be very conservative with permit numbers, to have season dates that allow for 90% success rates with only 3-4 days of hunting, and to give the bulk of the permits to rifle hunters, means fewer tags for the public. If the DWR were allowed to manage, instead of ration, the elk herds there could be a lot more tags issued, quality could/would still be high, and money tags could still bring in a hefty sum.

How about this:
1}Keep harvest ages at, or lower, what they are presently instead of raising them on 93% of the units us as proposed the elk committee and DWR.
2}Change the permit allotments from 60/25/15 (rifle/archery/muzzle) to 50/30/15 on all but the premium units (5-8 units).
3}Change the season dates so that the rifle hunt opens the second Saturday of October, except for the premium units. No more rifle hunts in September or November.
4}Have other objectives that are on equal standing with harvest age averages when determining permit numbers: a)Bull:cow ratios b)Calf:cow ratios c)Success rates d)Hunter satisfaction (yearly surveys of those who drew a permit that year) e)Number of applicants per unit and weapon type.
 
I don't think cwmu tags should count. That is private property and in Utah you can't hunt the whole unit if you have a landowner or cwmu so in my opinion those DO NOT COUNT. They are animals on private property the public would not have access to them anyways and it doesn't take away tags from anyone.
Hoytme:::
As an avid archer I have to agree 100% that we need to increase archery tags. Just a quick example I used to explain this concept to a friend today. Lets pretend there are 400 tags and 300 go to rifle hunters and 100 go to archers. Now as we know draw odds for rifle suck so here is a solution: Take 50 tags away from rifle hunters and give 100 tags to archery tags. SO now you have 250 rifle tags and 200 archery tags. So now we have increased tags by 50 but guess what happened to harvest. It went down. Taking away 50 rifle tags saves us 40 elk (80% success on rifle hunts) and it costs us 30 elk harvested by archers (100 new tags and only 30 harvested elk--30%) NOW THE GOOD NEWS FOR RIFLE GUYS!!!! US STUPID ARCHERS BLOW OUR POINTS ON A BOW TAG WITH 30% SUCCESS RATES TAKING US OUT OF THE DRAWING POOL AND INCREASING YOUR ODDS OF DRAWING A TAG!
Although I agree 100% I can't see the average guy buying into this anymore than the average guy on here supports SFW. It is a different way of thinking and the average guy is scared to death of that.
HoytME:: If you start an org that can get that pushed through consider me your first member. Tell me where to sign up!

Jason Yates
Basin Archery Shop
http://www.basinarcheryshop.com
5% OFF to all MonsterMuleys.com Members!!!
Discount code = monstermuleys
 
I have no interest in starting/belonging to a new group. Groups are a major part of the problem, IMHO. I think if the average hunter gets educated on the issues and the process that dictates game policies/management, they will be more aligned with what I am proposing over what the elk committee and DWR are proposing.
 
How silly of me...we shouldnt count STATE owned animals that happen to live on private land.

Funny thing though...those animals DO leave the private land. Those animals are counted in herd objective numbers. Quotas are set counting those animals...but we shouldnt count them when it comes to the number of tags going to wealthy hunters???

Thats just plain awesome logic!

Lets also not "count" the expo tags either...because those can go to the "average" guy. Yeah, average guys from all over the world can just pony up big $$ for hotels, airline tickets, etc. to come to the expo.

What a joke.

Its no wonder that SFW is largely limited to only Utardville. They arent having much luck getting a foothold in WY, MT, ID, AZ, etc...

I wonder why?
 
I hope this is not the same Buzz guy that posted like 50 pictures of whitetails and bragged about himself and said that whitetail hunting is the same out west as it is back east. If it is the same Buzz I would have thrown his comment out the window with out wasting my breath on a response. That Buzz is so full of himself he KNOWS EVERYTHING!!!!

Jason Yates
Basin Archery Shop
http://www.basinarcheryshop.com
5% OFF to all MonsterMuleys.com Members!!!
Discount code = monstermuleys
 
I thought that Wyoming was going good now with SFW and the Fish and Game have been working well. Also Idaho is starting to go good. Alaska is really on a roll. Nevada is starting SFW and Montana hunters want in as well as Colorado. New Mexico is also going great. That just comes off the net.
 
I really can't help myself BuzzH! Not on this one! I don't want to say anything bad about you SO.... I just pulled up a quote from some other guy in that last whitetail post!

When the Boogeyman goes to sleep every night, he checks his closet for BuzzH.
BuzzH doesn't read books. He stares them down until he gets the information he wants.

There is no theory of evolution. Just a list of creatures BuzzH has allowed to live.

Outer space exists because it's afraid to be on the same planet with BuzzH.

BuzzH does not sleep. He waits.

BuzzH is currently suing NBC, claiming Law and Order are trademarked names for his left and right legs.

BuzzH is the reason why Waldo is hiding.

BuzzH counted to infinity - twice.

There is no chin behind BuzzH's? beard. There is only another fist.

When BuzzH does a pushup, he isn't lifting himself up, he's pushing the Earth down.

BuzzH is so fast, he can run around the world and punch himself in the back of the head.

"BuzzH's hand is the only hand that can beat a Royal Flush.

BuzzH can lead a horse to water AND make it drink.

BuzzH doesn't wear a watch, HE decides what time it is.

BuzzH can slam a revolving door.

BuzzH does not get frostbite. BuzzH bites frost

Contrary to popular belief, America is not a democracy, it is a BuzzHatorship."

Why is it the guys with the most insecurities always have to act the smartest and the toughest and the bestest!!!

No hard feelings Buzz!

Jason Yates
Basin Archery Shop
http://www.basinarcheryshop.com
5% OFF to all MonsterMuleys.com Members!!!
Discount code = monstermuleys
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-07-10 AT 00:08AM (MST)[p]Wow Yates, If I would of known shooting a few whitetails, and posting a few pictures of same, would sore you up this bad...I may have just let them walk.

As to the topic at hand...I hope SFW takes a majority of the tags in Utah...along with landowners and outfitters.

May as well let them...they're going to get them anyway.
 
I really like the surrounding states pooling all of their tags together idea, And also lets not just give them to the conservation organizations lets make them draw for them, just like we do. Then depending on which tags each conservation organization draws lets start a web site where all of the tags went and what banquets they are going to be sold or raffled off at. This will make the buyers of these tags go to different banquets all over the west and give new potential buyers a chance at some of these tags.
I still say divide them up evenly among the organizations but lets make it interesting on which tags they get.
I have one other question when will the first wolf govenors tag be sold.

Windage and elevation pilgrim windage and elevation
 
I agree if it is a Western Hunting Expo and non-residents can draw tags their states should put some in the pool as well. Especially states that have SFW in them. If there were 300-400 tags maybe I could even pull a tag! ;-)

Jason Yates
Basin Archery Shop
http://www.basinarcheryshop.com
5% OFF to all MonsterMuleys.com Members!!!
Discount code = monstermuleys
 
I think it should be a set number. With the push coming this summer/fall to make statewide deer go limited entry, special interest groups will no doubt be wanting 5% of the tags from every unit in the state. If they can't get it done with 100 tags TOTAL, they need to not get a single one.
 
Good luck getting WY, MT, ID, AZ, etc. to give tags to the Western Hunting Expo...

Pipe dream...at best.

Let the Utah hunters keep giving more...and more...and more. Trust SFW and the Don to do whats best.

You call down the thunder...you reap the whirlwind.
 
>I agree if it is a
>Western Hunting Expo and non-residents
>can draw tags their states
>should put some in the
>pool as well. Especially states
>that have SFW in them.
>If there were 300-400 tags
>maybe I could even pull
>a tag!
> ;-)
>



Why would other states want to donate tags when the expo isn't in their state?

Also why would the states donate tags when nobody knows where the money is going from those tags except a select few people?

I thought most of the tags come out of the non res pool?

Just a few thoughts on the matter.

And to put this back on track I think 1% of tags should go to the highest bidder. It would make the tags worth a lot more.
 
>I really like the surrounding states
>pooling all of their tags
>together idea, And also lets
>not just give them to
>the conservation organizations lets make
>them draw for them, just
>like we do. Then depending
>on which tags each conservation
>organization draws lets start a
>web site where all of
>the tags went and what
>banquets they are going to
>be sold or raffled off
>at. This will make the
>buyers of these tags go
>to different banquets all over
>the west and give new
>potential buyers a chance at
>some of these tags.
>I still say divide them up
>evenly among the organizations but
>lets make it interesting on
>which tags they get.
>I have one other question when
>will the first wolf govenors
>tag be sold.
>
>Windage and elevation pilgrim windage and
>elevation


Thinking like this makes me want to puke and quit hunting all together! Seriously.

All this to groups who don't disclose how the money is spent???

Will this insanity ever end?

10 CONSERVATION TAGS MAX.
 
Just out of curiosity would the people posting on this post state where you live. It is no that non residents can not respond but I think that the opinion of people in Utah are most important on this matter as it effects us the most! The comments from non-residents are fine BUT I have noticed a lot of NON-RESIDENT comments and they are not nearly as aware of the situation and are not nearly as effected by the decisions being made in MOST cases. So state where you are from so we can all take that into consideration.

Jason Yates
Basin Archery Shop
http://www.basinarcheryshop.com
5% OFF to all MonsterMuleys.com Members!!!
Discount code = monstermuleys
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-07-10 AT 02:28PM (MST)[p]MTQuivers,

First off in my case my handle & profile clearly indicate where I live now, although I used to live out west.

With all due respect, when there is a cancer, you move to remove it fast. Now there are multiple posters actually calling for improving the cancer by spreading it to other states. Do you expect the residents of these other states to be non-participants?

King's hunting must be attacked everywhere.
 
MT

Could you answer my questions from post 26?

Since you stated other states should add tags to the expo it seems like you want non res tags but not non res input?
 
I think the NR's that apply in Utah should have an absolute say in how many tags go to the expo...the tags were taken from the NR pool and are being given BACK to Utah Residents for the most part.

Anyone that hunts or applies to Utah should be entitled to an opinion.

DT, I wouldnt hold my breath on an answer...seems that Utah is notorious for not answering questions...they learned from the best (SFW).
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-07-10 AT 02:53PM (MST)[p]100% "hitting the ground" is not realistic. It takes money to operate an organization. Nothing wrong with accounting for the money spent and showing members where it is going. However, there would never be an agreement on how much is set aside.

I say cap all tags at 5%. This would add significant $$$ to the pool. If the orgs do as they are designed, the "Average Joe" will benebit from the investment.

Bottom line is that there will always be archair Biologists who will complain and do nothing to benefit wildlife.

If you are not happy with the current situation, go to meetings, or start your own org...
 
Yeah - what Buzz said. Based on what I have read the non-residents have a better handle on the issues than some of the residents.

Some of you guys are all over the map. You say utah is giving up too many tags and then you suggest other states should give up more tags? WTH? You got an issue with your own state...fix it, don't make some asinine 'pooling' suggestions.

Referring to another post (one I did not quite understand) about 'capitalism' and 'socialism.' Pooling tags? - Does that sound like capitalism or socialism?

Focus....
 
I am in favor of auction tags. I think about 25 percent would be great. That is about 25 percent of what they are getting now. I think 0 tags would be even better until they open the books and show us where the money is going.
I would never donate to a charity that didn't show me what percentage actually makes it to the cause.
 
First of all I was not trying to be offensive about non residents I just wanted people to state where they are from so readers could take it into account! Secondly although non-residents can put in for the tags the habitat projects are primarily for Utah and the tags are primarily taken from the residents of Utah. The original post was about what percentage everyone thinks is fair. I just wanted to hear feedback on what everyone else thought. Now of course this is assuming that an acceptable amount of the $$$ is used for wildlife. (I am going to personally give Don and SFW a chance to explain their accounting before ASSUMING their guilt) That being said I gave my opinion and ALL I WAS WANTING WAS a NUMBER PERCENTAGE! What percentage of tags should be used. That is the question that I believe having a resident non-resident status matters. Not that NR opinions don't matter but I think the opinions should be seperate.
As far as to why NR states should put some tags in I don't know the answer to that. Probably for the same reasons Utah has put so many in the pool. To raise money and to get people to the convention. If NR states were to receive some of the money from the convention for their own wildlife habitat it would make sense to donate to the cause.
I am not saying SFW's system is perfect I am just asking what percentage of tags would you be willing to use in the auction/convention tags pool IF EVERYTHING IS ON THE UP AND UP AND "IF" THE MONEY IS BEING USED PROPERLY? Again I don't know the ORG'S books but if they were straight what is a reasonable percentage?

Jason Yates
Basin Archery Shop
http://www.basinarcheryshop.com
5% OFF to all MonsterMuleys.com Members!!!
Discount code = monstermuleys
 
I am a nonresident.

If the books were open and on the "up & up", I think less than 1% for conservation tags would be acceptable, in your terms. By my terms I would say a total of 10.
 
I'm a resident of Utah

I would be fine with a 5% on Conservation tags. That limits the percentage, but it encourages the Conservation groups to help wildlife numbers grow to be able to take a cut of a much larger pie. If the pie gets larger it is a win-win for the public, and the conservation groups. We all get more tags, but each retains the same percentage of the tags.

In my mind the goal for all of us is to increase hunting opportunity. The problem with this is that some people aren't willing to sacrifice now to achieve greater long term success.

What I'm saying by this is people are not willing to cut tag numbers, and season lengths now to allow animal numbers to build up. Some people want to have longer seasons and more liberal tag numbers, yet they still want more game animals. That doesn't work. We all need to be willing to sacrifice short term pleasure so that we can build herds. Then we can hunt with our families because there will be more animals, which equals more tags, which equals more opportunity.


DeerBeDead
 
I will again say 1-2% and 100% of moneys should hit the ground. That is realistic. Management and overhead should be covered by membership dues and other donations. To fund and pay employees salaries off the public resource is not right.
 
>I will again say 1-2% and
>100% of moneys should hit
>the ground. That is
>realistic. Management and overhead
>should be covered by membership
>dues and other donations.
>To fund and pay employees
>salaries off the public resource
>is not right.

Spot on!
 
>>I will again say 1-2% and
>>100% of moneys should hit
>>the ground. That is
>>realistic. Management and overhead
>>should be covered by membership
>>dues and other donations.
>>To fund and pay employees
>>salaries off the public resource
>>is not right.
>
>Spot on!


Agree this is a reasonable allotment. Now, let's see how the organizations squirm that are living off the bloated number of tags today.
 
Exactly, Silentstalker.

Expenses should be covered by other means. NOT by what is essentially our tax dollars. Donations, auctions (not tags), banquets, whatever. Not public tags whored out to the highest bidder.

We have a microcosm of our federal government in this issue-- the guys with the money are making the rules. Every one of the big orgs in the state as well as every one of the video making guides spending hundreds of thousands on tags would have to rethink their business strategy. Camping on trophy animals and bounty fees would drop off dramatically, solving another issue.

It's time we start a revolution. It won't change until we clean house and start from the top.
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-08-10 AT 09:21AM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Mar-08-10 AT 09:20?AM (MST)

I am a fairly harsh critic of conservation and convention permits. However, I believe these permits may have a place in wildlife conservation ASSUMING that they are limited in number and the resulting funds are properly used and accounted for. Unfortunately, we have allowed the number of these permits to grow out of control and we have relied on the DWR to monitor how the funds generated are being used. Shame on us!

If I were king for a day, this is what I would do:

1. I would continue to allow one (1) governor?s and sportsmen?s permit to be made available for each species. The season dates and restrictions would be the same as they are now.

2. I would provide one (1) conservation permit per unit for each limited entry and once in a life time species. However, for units where there are less than five (5) public tags available, there would be no conservation permits. For example, instead of giving out eight (8) elk conservation permits on the Wasatch unit, I would only make one available. I do not mean one rifle, one archery, one muzzleloader and one premium. I would make one tag available and the buyer can select the season (weapon) he wishes to hunt (archery, rifle or muzzleloader). I believe that by limiting the number of conservation permits, you will drive up the end price. It is the law of supply and demand. This would result in approximately the following number of conservation permits:

Premium Deer 2
Limited Entry Deer 8
Limited Entry Elk 29
Limited Entry Pronghorn 29
Moose 12
Bison 2
Desert Bighorn Sheep 12
Rocky Mountain Bighorn 7
Rocky Mountain Goat 11
Turkey and Sandhill Crane (Who cares)
TOTAL 112

3. I would cut the number of convention permits in half (100). This would allow the Hunting and ?Conservation? Expo to continue but it would put 100 permits back into the public draw.

4. Most importantly, I would impose a strict requirement that 100% of the funds generated from the sale of governor, conservation and convention permits be used for actual conservation projects that are approved by the DWR. I would also impose strict audit requirements and make sure that this information was made publicly available on the DWR?s website and the website of the participating conservation organization. The current rule only requires that 90% of the funds generated from conservation permits be used for actual conservation projects. EVEN WORSE, THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT THAT ANY OF THE FUNDS GENERATED FROM CONVENTION PERMITS BE USED FOR ACTUAL CONSERVATION PROJECTS. I believe 100% of those monies should be used for conservation. As stated by others, the funds that conservation organizations generate through admissions, membership fees, auctions (non-permit), and donations can be used to pay operating costs and salaries. Public tags should not be used for anything except conservation.

These are a few of my ideas. Let me reiterate, I believe that conservation and convention permits may have a place in wildlife conservation if they are limited in number and the resulting funds are properly used and accounted for. However, I am afraid that the conservation organizations and the DWR have become addicted to the money generated from these tags and the lack of controls on how the money is used. I am not sure if they would ever agree to scale them back to reasonable numbers. We may have created a monster that is already out of control.

I would welcome any thoughts or comments that you have regarding this proposal.

Hawkeye

Browning A-Bolt 300 Win Mag
Winchester Apex .50 Cal
Mathews Drenalin LD
 
There should be no more than 2 conservation tags per species in the state. Make these state wide tags, and you will have 80+% of the money generated from the countless unit specific, average hunts currently given.

2 tags per species. Period.

Bill
 
A couple comments:

1st on the number of tags, I think that there is way too many conservation tags handed out to the organizations and it is defiantly driving down the $$ raised per tag. I know several people who buy tags every year in Utah and will make sure they have one every year no matter the cost, but with the number of tags available they just shop around at all the banquets until they get the best deal. Cut the number in half and I bet you see the price of tags nearly double. Remember these people are spending a ton of money for a tax deductable right to purchase a tag, and although some may be saving a few years to afford one the majority of people buying them can afford to spend more.

As for the Orgs using Conservation tag money to pay their Admin fees what a joke. I understand that they need money to run their orgs but as a representative for a manufacture who has donated tens of thousands of dollars in product to these orgs (and we where one of their smaller donors) they have ways to earn sufficient money to operate without dipping into the Conservation Tag money. Take this out of the equation and these orgs have no other reason or motive "i.e. 10% admin fees" to continue to push for these outrageous tag numbers. They would then only be driven by conservation which is the purpose of these tags and organizations and they could help the division decide where to spend 100% of the money to benefit wildlife and all sportsman.

I am a fan of Conservation Tags, and of these organizations, look at anything in life you have to make and investment in order for things improve, with that said your investment has to be handled in the right way by a responsible investor that is motivated by what is best for the investment.

As for the Convention Tags, this is a joke using the public?s tags and forcing people to jump through hoops in order to have an opportunity to apply for one just too increase attendance at your convention is a joke. If these organizations are doing so much for the general public and have so much to offer they should be able to make people want to come to their convention/show without bribing them with a public resource. Not that I would support it anyway but if these tags were truly only about raising money for wildlife they should allow everyone to have an equal chance at them regardless of whether or not they come to your show or convention.

As far as looking at what other states do and how many tags they give, who cares what other states do and how many tags they give, maybe they should look at what Utah is doing, although the orgs have gotten too greedy because of the motivation to earn more admin $$ and it has gotten out of hand, conservation permits and the funds generated by them have helped to make Utah become one of the if not the top hunting destinations in the United States.

Just my .02 sorry it was kind of long
 
If the convention was really about getting money for wildlife, it would have been much better to not require people to attend to attend the event to be eligible to apply for these tags.

Take for instance all the people across the United States, or for that matter, across the world, that like to hunt, or have a chance to draw one of those coveted tags, but for many reasons, can not attend and therefore can not apply.

I know a number of people and there are thousands, upon thousands of others who would most likely spend upwards of $100 on application fees to try for that tag if the attendance requirement did not exist. That amount ($100), is only a fraction of what they have to spend to get to Salt Lake City. Certainly that requirement eliminates a ton of potential revenue. It makes some wonder if the hotels and venders give the sponsors a kickback for that requirement. That money could easily go into someone?s pocket and could not be tracked.

Can someone out there please explain the logic of that requirement if something like that is not happening? At the time we fought against these tags, many of us also fought against that requirement, but of course it all falls on deaf ears.

Here's what a couple others critters seemed to think about these tags and the way all this is handled so secretly.

843424696_1343875753384_1125940261_31043042_4040479_n.jpg


5716bunny2.jpg


Have a good one. BB
 
And if its really all about conservation tags making money for wildlife, why are they auctioned off in small regional banquets that people may or may not know about and may or may not have the ability to attend while paying an auctioneer a whole bunch of money to sell them. Why not put them on the internet and auction them off truly to the highest bidder, not to the highest bidder who makes it to the event or sends an outfitter to do it for them. Seems like this has worked for ebay, I cant tell you how many times I have heard people say I would have bought that tag for more then that if I would have known.

I guess then it would be harder for the same people to continue to get deals on tags so there clients can kill monster animails to display at the expo!
 
To be fair with these tags and to give all the information, most of these conservation organziations, that get tags, send a few of these tags out to their banquets in other states in order to drum up money for those banquets. So Utah tags are going to non-residents in California, Wyoming, Idaho and even to the Mid-western & Eastern states that have chapters. I do not see any tags from other states coming into Utah under the Conservation heading.
 
Silentstalker and I are brothers so naturally we don't agree on everything, but I agree with him 100% on his recommendation for these tags:

1-2% at most for auction tags (smaller # of tags will actually drive up their value substantially. ONE HUNDRED PERCENT of the funds from the tags should hit the ground for conservation with FULL accountabilty and transparency on the transaction and what project(s) receive the funding/what species stand to benefit from the project and why (this information should be made available to all on both the DWR website and on the conservation orgs website).
 

Similar threads

JPickett
All in for DEP
Replies
10
Views
738
JPickett
JPickett
SDBugler
Elk Draw Questions
Replies
34
Views
2k
ClearCreek
C
F
Change UNIT-WIDE elk designation in New Mexico to RANCH ONLY!
Replies
54
Views
3k
MrRogers
MrRogers

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

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

59CE1366-FF92-4DB9-9234-412A3F2A35D4.jpeg
photo 2.JPG
MD217.jpg
MyKaibabmulie.jpg
1000006617.jpg
tempImageSEglmZ.png
MD 21.jpg
IMG_5420.jpeg
IMG_9542.jpg
IMG_0826.jpeg
213 inch B&C.JPG
colomuledeer.JPG
Back
Top Bottom