Home Forums Hunting & Shooting General Big Game "Governor's" Permits & Similar in the West

Before you do, let's call some coyotes at least

Only if you promise not to talk..

Curious if you know the breakdown of the 316 tags that were raffled versus sold to highest bidder? Or were they all auction type tags?

No idea.

2013 Utah budget for DWR is $78,580,924. In 2010 it was $67,721,571. If the 2010 budget had grown by 4% each year the budget in 2013 would have been just over $3,000,000 lower. It actually grew at 5%. My experience is that bureaucracies will grow at the max rate they can increase revenues.

Auction off every tag in Utah for all I care, I am just saying that if you feed the bureaucracies more money, they will start more "critical" programs and grow more bureaucrats. I view wildlife as a public resource. It should be equal opportunity for all Americans in regards to pricing and tag accessibility.

If the rich want to buy game farm animals, travel to exotic places, eat at expensive restaurants, buy nice cars, custom rifles, euro scopes, it matters not to me in the least. Happy for them. I just don't think they should be able to line up for preference for a public resource under the guise of benefitting wildlife. There are other ways to balance budgets of agencies who have trouble controlling their own growth. Your mileage obviously varies.

Yup. If they want to buy a bull they can just fork over 15K for a private land hunt. I'd rather pay an extra $5-10 per tag and have a level playing field.

Real 400" bulls are pretty scarce here in Wyoming. On public ground during an open season that bull is a shooter unless a guy is willing to eat the tag.

Our bulls have a pretty hard life with the cold and predators. They just don't get as big, on average, as some of the monsters from Arizona or New Mexico.

I believe the tag was a gift from a friend.

Thought I'd stay out of this one, but can't help myself. I agree with the above.

Oregon was a bit late jumping into the auction tag business. Prior to that, I was rather proud that Dupont/Rockefeller chances of taking trophy game were the same as mine here. Not a level playing field anymore though.

Similarly, our sheep/goat numbers are such that a successful applicant only scores one in a lifetime. I've been trying since 1974, and time is running out. No preference point system for sheep and goats. Bidders can score how ever many the pocket book can bear.

We also have some statewide raffle tags available, but I've never found raffles to be much of an investment. The auction/raffle hunts generated $542,601 for Oregon in 2013. There were a total of 364,555 applications for big game tags issued during 2013.

I'd gladly chip in an additional $1.45 with each of my applications if we could relevel the playing field.

Just my thoughts,

Texas has a lottery system for a bighorn sheep tag each year. I think it's $10 per ticket now and open to anyone. If you win you not only get the sheep tag but taxidermy for it. They throw in a guided hunt on some of the state WMA's for mule deer, whitetail deer, and a prongorn all for one winner.

This was last years winner for a $10 ticket.

Thanks a lot Nathan......now my odds are 1/2,100,000 of getting my tag......

If one thing is certain, it's that government agencies will continue to spend more and more, and never less. So, once these "tags" become "necessary", they'll never go away or decrease. Only increase.

I guide (fishing) guys who buy these tags on a regular basis. They have more money than they know what to do with, and have zero qualm of dropping big bucks for these tags. And, they'd pay more than what they are currently paying. I have 4 of them on my boat last year at the same time, and the conversations were interesting, to say the last.

It's a new era of hunting. It's all about status and those who have, looking down and expecting an advantage over those who don't.

I don't like where hunting is going. It should remain affordable and accessible for all.

Well if it makes you feel any better I am ineligible to enter.

+100. Well stated.

Calvin,

I agree with you 100% that hunting should remain affordable and accessible for all. I think a more accurate statement would be "affordable to most", but most certainly the wildlife should remain accessible to all (consumptive and/or nonconsumptive).

The one portion of your post worth some discussion is the part about the government agencies continuing to spend more and more and not less.

I was wondering how many businesses are spending less on operating cost now than they were 5-10-20 years ago? It seems a bit unfair to expect a G&F agency to spend less to operate when nearly everything they do costs more.

Its also fair to note that the various G&F agencies are saddled with management, education, land acquisition, feeding programs, fish stocking, etc. etc. etc.

All these programs are demands that either the State or the Sportsmen have made of the G&F departments and they all cost money...a lot of money. Management isnt free, trucks arent free, fuel isnt free,...etc.

I think the view that needs to change is that the license fees and operating costs need to be viewed as less of a "cost" and more as an "investment" into wildlife and the economy. Wildlife is a huge economic driver in most every state, and even more so in the Western States and Alaska for sure.

For example, my home state of Wyoming, our game and fish expenditures are about 71-73 million annually. The direct economic impact is 1.1 billion. Thats a pretty fair rate of return on an investment.

I think instead of hamstringing the G&F budgets and asking them to do more with less, we look to some of the people that profit from wildlife for some financial support. Ever since game management started, Sportsmen have payed all the freight. With costs increasing the only real option the G&F agencies have had in the past is to either:

1. Raise license fees on either Resident or mainly Non-Resident hunters. I think most states are nearing the point they cant charge much more or NR are going to start staying home. You can only dip so much water from the same well before it dries up.

2. Beg the State Legislature for general fund money.

IMO, the only way we're going to keep hunting accessible and affordable to all, is to demand that those that profit from wildlife(remember 1.1 billion in direct economic value), help us pay the bills.

If we dont find some alternative long-term funding sources, the G&F agencies are going to have to cut programs. We simply can not expect the G&F agencies to do more with less. If we want to continue to have the great opportunities we have, and increase opportunity, we have to find a way to come up with additional funding.

I can say that Wyoming has a very active alliance of Sportsmen Groups that are doing just that. We also have a receptive Governor that understands the economic and social value of wildlife.

Colorado Parks and Wildlife is in the process of shedding $10 million per year for the next 5 years just on the wildlife side. There will be some revenue increases as well, but the goal is to shed $10 million. So, that might not be the norm, but it is at least one example of a large agency that is downsizing, for now.

Will this mean less tags?

Likely not. It just means that Governor's Tags are going to become more and more necessary to fund projects that will otherwise go unfunded.

Tanner

Either that or some programs are just flat going to be cut...

About damn time