I haven't done any research but I think tags (any State) should be priced at a level high enough so that demand is not hurt by it, generating the most revenue possible. In other words, they should "get all they can get" without hurting demand. That's what I'd do anyway.
Should F&G eBay all the tags? That maximizes revenue. Bunding first access to the unit to the highest bidder will generate even higher bids. How about the approach where applicants blind bid all tags then everyone pays the lowest price that is needed to sell out that tag?
Be aware, the sheep tags will go for around $30,000 each in the blind bid and around $40,000 average in the eBay scenario. Teddy Roosevelt will not be happy, though, as will turn the Big 3 tags into the playground of only what most current big game hunters would view as the wealthy.
Or, keep the current process but drop the resident preference so more tags go to non-residents which pay more for each tag sold?
Do people deserve a sheep tag that are not wealthy? If the goal of F&G is merely to maximize revenues then the answer needs to be you as a hunter earn a Big 3 tag by first accumulating wealth that exceeds all but a few folks that hunt. If F&G wants to offer a chance for a wide variety of hunters of varied socio-economic classes of hunters to participate then needs to keep the tag price as low as possible.
Colorado is experiencing the growth in a voting population majority which is not hunter nor trapper friendly. A revenue-maximization scheme is short-sighted and will hurt recruitment of resident big game hunters which in turn accelerates the pace of imposed restrictions on hunting and will lead to the voter-approved introduction of wolves and grizzly bears.
