I wish the funds were a bit more directly used though. For instance all the money from say a mule deer gov tag goes directly back to improving mule deer habitat or deer fencing along the highway or some other deer project instead of into the main fund.

tanner, remember...it is all about the money. Who cares if they are shooting bucks off the winter range after finding them with a helicopter. It raises money right?

LOL

Landowner tags and governor tags are what has ruined the west. Shutting down the deer season for 1-2 years would do a lot more for the deer herds than $100k, but then again, the state is not willing to lose money. And never mind the ranchers that get damage payments yet aren't required to let the public hunt their land in return.

Sorry, have to completely disagree.

The Governor's tag is for ONE animal of each species and generates more cash for habitat improvement than probably 1000 tags sold for each specie.

How can letting a rich dude kill one elk ruin hunting in the west?

Ridiculous and extremely short-sighted

When you get your numbers straight on how many tags are auctioned get back to me.

Wyoming Game and Fish Commission Examines Impacts of Complimentary Licenses; Votes to Make No Changes

10/1/2012

CHEYENNE - At its September meeting in Casper, the Wyoming Game and Fish Commission voted to make no changes to the way commissioner complimentary licenses are allocated.

Each of Wyoming�s seven Game and Fish Commissioners can allocate up to eight complimentary hunting licenses annually for elk, deer, or antelope. The licenses must be donated to a nonprofit charitable organization, which must then auction or raffle the license to raise funds. The successful bidder or raffle winner designates the species, hunt area, and license type. Most holders of complimentary licenses choose to hunt in areas and during seasons where there is a high likelihood of harvesting a trophy animal.

To ensure that commissioner licenses are not having a biological impact on species in certain highly desirable hunt areas, the commission requested that Wyoming Game and Fish Department personnel conduct a study on allocation of these licenses and their potential impacts. The commission also discussed the issue of fairness concerning the allocation of these licenses in hard-to-draw limited quota areas.

The study, which looked at 10 years of data in high-demand hunt areas, was presented to the commission in January2012. The study found that, while there is potential for negative perceptions about fairness, there are no biological impacts in areas where commissioner complimentary licenses were most often allocated.

�Because many of these licenses go to certain high-demand areas every year, we wanted to make sure there were no adverse impacts to the species in those areas,� says WGF Commission President Aaron Clark. �In addition, we received strong support from the public and from our conservation partners to make no changes to the current system. As a whole, the commission feels good about how we are allocating these licenses and the funds they help raise for wildlife conservation.�

(Contact: Eric Keszler (307) 777-4594)

8/22/2008
Division of Wildlife

Wildlife Projects Funded by Special Licenses




The Colorado Division of Wildlife (DOW) and eight non-profit wildlife conservation organizations have selected more than $480,000 in wildlife projects that will be funded this year with proceeds from the sale of special auction and raffle hunting licenses in Colorado.

Each year several special hunting licenses are auctioned or raffled by non-profit wildlife conservation organizations to raise funds for wildlife projects. These special hunting licenses provide hunters with the opportunity to hunt in many areas around the state. Because these tags offer incredible hunting opportunities, the auctions and raffles generate considerable interest and income for wildlife projects.

Raffles are held annually by Rocky Mountain Bighorn Society, Safari Club International, Ducks Unlimited, Mule Deer Foundation, Colorado Bowhunters Association, and the Colorado Wildlife Federation. Licenses are auctioned annually by Rocky Mountain Bighorn Society, Mule Deer Foundation, Colorado Mule Deer Association, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation and the Colorado Bowhunters Association.

Some of the auction and raffle projects funded this year include:

Rampart Range Bighorn Sheep Lungworm Treatment Study

The Rampart Range Bighorn Sheep Lungworm Treatment Study received $15,818 this year. This is the second year of funding for a long-term study on the effectiveness of two types of treatment for lungworm infection, a respiratory disease in bighorn sheep. Radio-collared ewes are split into three groups. One group gets an oral treatment. The second group gets injections. The third group, the control group, receives no treatment. Stool samples are collected from ewes to look for the presence of lungworm larvae to determine which (if any) treatment is most effective at reducing larval lungworm concentrations. Ewes are then monitored after they give birth to determine whether treating ewes during pregnancy improves lamb survival.

Pikes Peak Bighorn Sheep Population Estimation and Demographics

The Pikes Peak Bighorn Sheep Population Estimate and Demographics project received $46,468 in funding. This is the second year of funding for a study aimed at estimating population size and monitoring movements and survival of rocky mountain bighorn on Pikes Peak. In 2007, biologists estimated that the bighorn sheep population on Pikes Peak and surrounding areas was about 180 animals. Preliminary results indicate that individuals within the Pikes Peak sheep herd follow the same seasonal dispersal and regrouping patterns year after year. Members split into groups on a somewhat predictable schedule with the same individuals forming sub-herds each year.

Black Ridge Desert Bighorn Sheep Population Assessment

The Black Ridge Desert Bighorn Sheep Population Assessment and Monitoring project is a multi-year project intended to learn about the Black Ridge desert bighorn sheep herd near the Colorado National Monument. The assessment received $30,000 in funding. The project looks at factors including survival, lamb production and recruitment, causes of mortality, range and interaction with other herds. Funding will be used for capture of animals for radio-collaring, data analysis, and a technician to perform field work. The project has additional funding from the DOW, Rocky Mountain Bighorn Society and the Foundation for North American Wild Sheep.

Poudre River Bighorn Sheep Population Estimate & Lamb Recruitment Study

The Poudre River Bighorn Sheep Population Estimate and Recruitment Study received $17,000. The project is in the fourth year of evaluating lamb recruitment, lamb survival and herd population size and performance. Beginning in January 2005, DOW biologists radio-collared a sample of ewes in the upper and lower Poudre Canyon. Data from these radio collared animals allow wildlife managers to estimate annual adult ewe survival, document seasonal movements, locate lambing grounds and monitor the presence and survival of lambs. Data gathered to date suggest a declining population canyon-wide, with pneumonia implicated in all recovered lamb mortalities from the lower canyon. In 2008, a nutritional, mineral and antibiotic treatment was applied to a small group of ewes in the lower canyon in hopes of improving lamb recruitment.

Georgetown Bighorn Sheep Range, Population and Survival Estimation

In 2006, DOW initiated a study utilizing radio collars to estimate population and survival for adult ewes and rams in the Georgetown bighorn sheep herd. These population parameters have been used, along with data from annual coordinated counts, to produce a population model similar to those used to guide the management of deer and elk in Colorado. This population model has proven useful in the management of the Georgetown herd and allows DOW to continue to estimate the size of the bighorn population beyond this study. The Georgetown study has also provided information on sheep movement, range, distribution, habitat use, and lamb dynamics. The focus of the study will shift in 2009 towards collecting more detailed and precise spatial information which is needed to mitigate the effects of human development and recreation in the area. The Georgetown Bighorn Sheep project received $46,630 in auction and raffle funding.

Flattops Moose Transplant Project

The goal of the Flattops Moose Transplant Project is to establish a self-sustaining, breeding moose population on the Flattops east of Meeker. Plans are being made to transplant moose from northern Utah to the Flattops. The initial project goals will include documenting seasonal movements, seasonal use areas and survival rates of translocated animals and documenting production and recruitment rates of female moose translocated to the Flattops. The project received $105,000 in auction and raffle funding and will result in an additional moose population in western Colorado.

Radium Habitat Improvement Project

The Radium Habitat Improvement Project received $10,000 this year. The primary objective of the project is to improve winter range for a variety of species along the Colorado River corridor in the Radium basin. Work includes reduction of pinyon-juniper encroachment, increasing of plant species diversity and vigor, increasing carrying capacity of habitat for deer and elk and work to recharge old water springs in the area.

The Radium Habitat Project partners have been working on habitat improvements in the area since 2001, conducting more than $100,000 in habitat improvements so far. This year's auction and raffle funds will be used in conjunction with funds from the Colorado Mule Deer Foundation and the Rocky Mountain Bighorn Society, and labor from the Colorado Youth Corp and Mule Deer Foundation. A prescribed fire and habitat manipulation plan is in place through 2017 in conjunction with the Bureau of Land Management, US Forest Service, DOW, Colorado State Forest Service and area land owners.

Basalt Lucksinger Fields Project


The Lucksinger Fields Project on the Basalt State Wildlife Area is designed to improve winter range habitat for deer and elk in the Roaring Fork Valley. These former hay meadows are being replanted and rehabilitated to provide beneficial habitat for big game and other species. The Roaring Fork Valley has rapidly developed over the past two decades and enhancing these fields will provided needed winter range. The project was provided $41,060 from auction and raffle funds.

HD Mountains Mule Deer Responses to Energy Development

Energy development in Southwest Colorado is increasing on mule deer winter range. A long-term research project in the HD Mountains has two primary objectives: to monitor mule deer behavioral and population responses to energy development; and to design and evaluate best management practices and mitigations in response to natural gas development. The HD project received $27,916 in auction and raffle funding and is a cooperative effort between the DOW, the Southern Ute Indian Tribe, the US Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management. Approximately 140 mule deer have been captured and fitted with radio telemetry collars since 2004. VHF and GPS radio-telemetry collars allow biologists to evaluate deer movement and survival in areas prior to, during, and after energy development. Body condition of captured animals is measured in development and control areas.

Age Distribution of Hunter-Harvested Mule Deer Bucks

Because mule deer management strategies vary throughout Colorado, a study is examining management strategies and how they affect the age distribution of harvested bucks in three specific areas: the Gunnison Basin, the Uncompahgre Plateau, and the southern San Luis Valley. The study started in 2007 with a sampling of hunters in Game Management Units 54, 61, 62, 80 and 81. Hunters received letters requesting that they send in a tooth from harvested bucks. The teeth were examined at a laboratory in Montana to determine exact animal ages. The study will continue through the 2009 hunting seasons. The Age Distribution study received $13,000 in auction and raffle funding. Biologists are interested in evaluating whether there is an optimum buck-to-doe ratio which can maximize both hunt quality and hunter opportunity.

Light Hill Habitat Improvement Project

The Light Hill project will treat 537 acres of over-mature mountain shrub and pinyon-juniper on Light Hill in the Aspen area. The project, which received $25,000 in auction and raffle funding this year, is occurring on public land managed by the BLM. The thick and aged plants are difficult for wildlife to utilize and provide less forage for wintering big game animals.
With increasing development in the Roaring Fork Valley, big game winter range is extremely limited. Increasing the production and carrying capacity of existing winter range is the best alternative to provide for dwindling big game winter range. Providing quality winter range for deer and elk not only feeds the animals but helps keep them off nearby roads and private lands where they can cause crop and fence damage.

Organizations that auction or raffle licenses help rank and select projects funded. The organizations provide a majority of the auction or raffle proceeds to fund the wildlife projects. Some funds may be used by the wildlife conservation organizations to pay auction and raffle administrative costs and also to fund wildlife projects of the non-profit organization's choosing.

Hunters and Wildlife Both Win With Big Game Fund-Raising �


cdfgnews.wordpress.com/tag/fund-raising-tags



Fish and Game Code, section 4334 requires the proceeds from the sale of these tags to be returned to CDFW to fund programs that benefit bighorn sheep, deer, elk and pronghorn antelope. In last year�s auctions, tags for hunting two bighorn sheep, one pronghorn antelope, two elk and eight deer raised more than $385,000 for the research and management of these wildlife species.

I wonder how the mule deer managed before the days of some rich guy shooting them off the winter range?

Ditch the governor's tag, and redo all the season dates, including cancelling the 4th buck season.

The way it was explained to me by a very credible and helpful source was that because, in the case of Colorado anyways, the DNR is operating at a deficit, and is being forced to make budget cuts. The funds raised by Auction/Raffle/Governor's licenses are therefore the only way that conservation and research projects get funded.

This was explained to me after I asked the question, "Couldn't Colorado raise resident hunting license prices slightly, and do away with the Gov' tags?" The idea would work if not for the budget deficit, but it is what it is. Until the deficit is dealt away, there aren't many other options to fund needed projects.

That being said, I think that Governor's tag holders should be subject to the same season dates as hunters with regular tags, and the armies of spotters and rumors of helicopter flyovers are despicable. If I needed 12 people and a Huey to help me find a big buck in Colorado, I'd probably quit right then and there.

Tanner

You think they're an "evil" because of jealousy and your perception of "fairness"

Let the wealthy dude shoot a monster and fund our big game numbers. I couldn't care less as long as it works for us with more animals which in turn leads to more available tags.

That's a short yet comfy road back to being serfs, I suppose?

I'd like to see the financials, public land acquisition plan, and flowchart, that leads to more game and more tags...

From what I've seen materialize, it leads to the big check boys getting to legally poach, whilst the serfs get to hope for a lucky ticket to join the club exactly once, or hunt the scraps during the seasons established by decades of sound game management...

Legally poach? If it's legal it's not poaching. It might not be fair chase and it might not be "ethical" but if you want to make an argument against these tags at least make sense.

It was a loose analogy to being granted permission to hunt 365 days a year regardless of established seasons... which is what poachers do. If you can't make that simple mental connection, I'm sorry.

Check the number of tags Utah allocates to the Hunt Expo ran by SFW. What a [bleep] joke and talk about a slippery slope! Those bastards can't even begin to give an accounting of where the funds go!

I would rather take the total revenue generated in the last year by raffles and auction tags, divide it by the total number of big game tags issued by the state, and have that amount added to each tag sold. It would not be a large increase.

I am for a flat tax as well.

Then when you see that 316 tags are .3% of all tags issued, it makes no sense to raise the price on every general season tag when you can simply have 316 rich dudes (probably less) fund most of the conservation projects in the state

I would rather take the total revenue generated in the last year by raffles and auction tags, divide it by the total number of big game tags issued by the state, and have that amount added to each tag sold. It would not be a large increase.

I am for a flat tax as well.

It's really not too bad if you look at it but may be enough to stop many from applying. It would increase the cost of some tags by 50%

Total Big Game tags issued in Utah: 100,626
Total Conservation Permit Revenue: 3,148,882 (on 316 tags)

It would necessitate an increase on each tag issued of $31.29

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.

Heck of a bull, but for that kind of cash you'd think he'd have found something well over 400".

Do they grow'em that big up there?

How much did the poor guy spend?

I view wildlife as a public resource. It should be equal opportunity for all Americans in regards to pricing and tag accessibility

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

About damn time

I would go along with raffle tags for additional fund raising capped at 10 tickets each. I imagine that would raise plenty of funds and would not grant privilege based on huge wealth.

If anyone thinks that the Parks and Wildlife budget is frozen and that they are cutting $10 million per year from it each and every year for the next five years probably they need to make me an offer for my ocean front property in AZ.

It reminds me of proposing a cut to food stamps and the whack nuts start saying it is going to make 20 million Americans starve to death. If the BGAP program goes away as a result of no auction tags, so be it. Not a fan of the 1% getting first crack at a public resource just because they can pay $200,000 for a sheep tag.

I would go along with raffle tags for additional fund raising capped at 10 tickets each. I imagine that would raise plenty of funds and would not grant privilege based on huge wealth.

Heckuva mule deer buck pic you posted by the way. Really nice.

Auction tags or no auction tags, BGAP needs to just go away. It is nothing more than an entitlement program for hunters and will never be able to sustain itself. It will always bleed money that could be better used in other areas

One ticket is a waste of time. Your max is 25. Once again the big money guys have the best odds. I cannot afford $625 to gamble on raffle tags.

The funny part is, the rich guys like the higher prices because it keeps the sales volume down which increases their odds. Sell those babies for $5 and you would sell 100x more tickets.

Says the guide and outfitter! Scared of the leasing competition?

I've never seen anything that indicates any raffle or auction money has ever gone to BGAP.

Access yes/Walk in/BM has been pretty successful in Wyoming,Idaho,Kansas,Montana and Utah even tho the outfitters whine and snivel about it.Lets do away with all NFS/BLM while we're at it..thats a pretty damn big government ran hunter welfare program there..Just think of the new outfitter lease opportunities for you Drum!

Isnt BGAP the same thing under a different name? Wyoming does a really good job at running theirs, and there is a donation box for it when you apply,something I dont see in other states with similar programs,HUGE mistake IMO. I've donated a pretty good sum over the years to Wyoming program,and have killed some nice critters on the properties as well.

If the price was lowered to $5 per ticket I think they would sell more tickets but the money raised would be about the same. I think most people want a chance at drawing and have budget of X dollars, so if tickets are $5 each the guy spending $25 still spends $25 and he gets 5 tickets. The guy currently buying 4 tickets for $100 now gets 20. I doubt we'd get a 100x more people buying tickets because the $25 ticket price is a limiting factor in purchasing one ticket.

Sandrew

Huntsonora, I think you're treading on some thin ice looking at wildlife management of any type on a purely economic level�.

I think its foolish and irresponsible to look at every program from a simple dollar value assigned, just like you did in your post above. While your numbers are accurate, you didnt take into account the benefit of spreading pressure around, giving hunters a place to hunt, and the CDOW getting the management (via access) they need in those areas�.

The number one reason why people either dont start hunting, or quit hunting, is because they dont have a place to go and/or access. Thats a fact well documented in various USFWS reports conducted nation wide.

The value in wildlife resources is only realized if the public has access to them...both consumptive and non-consumptive access. If the CDOW has to pay to get that access in some cases, so be it.

I think you need to pull away from your tunnel vision and think big-picture.

Also, you can blow smoke all you want, but the days of walking up and knocking on doors and gaining access for free are largely OVER

Instead of whining about a program, why not try to improve it?

Why do you not have a problem with this program then? We are paying to be able to hunt state land! None of them near where you guide? I hate seeing the scurvy public when I'm out trying to chase muley bucks

http://wildlife.state.co.us/LandWater/StateTrustLands/Pages/stl_info.aspx

Buzz, one last question, have you hunted BGAP areas here in eastern Colorado in the past? Have you ever hunted eastern Colorado and if so when was it?

Thanks

Buzz,

If you have hunted BGAP and had a positive experience I would love to hear about it

Thanks

BGAP is going away in Colorado. That's what I've heard anyway.