Governor Tags - Deer, Elk, etc.

[cuerro viejo]

We’re shafting the auction participants. We’ve created artificial scarcity to drive up the price of the tag. It’s not fair for them.
if the market price comes to 37K per tag, like it was quoted above for example, and the market can bare it, well then we should sell them all at that price.
If you can’t afford it too bad. Hunt prairie dogs. There’s no free lunch in conservation.

That wasn’t the argument. The argument was 4 Gov tags provide an additional $37k of conservation for each of the 45 draw tags, that was above the avg tag revenue income of $470 per tag. A voluntary 37k vs mandated 470 is a large discrepancy.

You cant shaft an open bidder, unless you took the tag away after he bought it, or change the terms. Value is what’s someone willing to pay. As of right know those auction tags atleast in NM continue to grow in perceived value.

pretty significant number that’s going directly into Sheep conservation that no one seems to have a solution for out side of raise all the State Tax’s

 

[Hide Hunter]

^ and that, ladies and gentlemen, is what we call marxism.

I voluntarily pay for special "conservation" license plates at the Nevada DMV, where I pay extra money every year to have those plates - for that money to go to conservation.

I voluntarily purchase raffle tickets for Nevada's dream tags, and voluntarily pay to try to land a governor's tag every year - voluntarily.

All that extra voluntary money goes into conservation - for animals I and anyone hunting also has better access to afterward, through better game numbers and healthier herds.

Those herds and everyone else's ability to draw a normal tag are enhanced by that voluntary, free-market/public-good approach, that doesn't require a marxist gun to the head of broader society in forcibly extracting the value of other people's labor to support my personal hobbies they don't participate in.

There's more than one way to grow our game herds - but I have zero problem with a handful of prized tags being auctioned off if some "filthy rich" hunter wants to barf up 6-figures in cash voluntarily, as long as that money's going to conservation and enhanced game opportunity for everyone else.

You can't just call everything you hate communist. This isn't the Cold War anymore

 

[Hide Hunter]

That wasn’t the argument. The argument was 4 Gov tags provide an additional $37k of conservation for each of the 45 draw tags, that was above the avg tag revenue income of $470 per tag. A voluntary 37k vs mandated 470 is a large discrepancy.

You cant shaft an open bidder, unless you took the tag away after he bought it, or change the terms. Value is what’s someone willing to pay. As of right know those auction tags atleast in NM continue to grow in perceived value.

pretty significant number that’s going directly into Sheep conservation that no one seems to have a solution for out side of raise all the State Tax’s

If auctioning a few tags is the best thing for the resource, then auctioning all of the tags is obviously better. You just don't care about the animals.

 

[WRO]

There was some objection to the idea of charging the broader hunting population or taxes for sheep conservation when many hunters don't care about sheep at all. So I thought of an alternative. I looked up Idaho's auction tag price over the last 5 years. It's different here because the tag can only be used in the most coveted unit every other year, so our auction tag price varies between ~200K and 300K depending on the year. Call it an average of $250K. There were ~4000 applicants for bighorn tags. $250K/4000 is equal to $62.50 per applicant. Charge applicants a non refundable $75 application fee and BAM we don't need auction money anymore. I'd pay it.

For further context, the Raffle tag in Idaho has been selling ~20,000 entries to 2,000 applicants the last few years. Ticket prices vary depending on how many you buy (1+$20, 6 for $100, 25 for $250) ranging from $10-20 per entry. On average those applicants are paying over $100 and some over $200 for an entry in the raffle. So I don't think it is outside the realm of reason to think that applicants in the draw would be willing to pay $75 per application.

My main point is that we don't "need" auction money. WSF is pissing on our heads and telling us it's rain. We could find ways to replace it, but auction money is easy and has a 30 year history that is difficult to change.

I can also acknowledge that the existence of an auction tag does not change my drawing odds. As a matter of fact I am already out of the bighorn game in Idaho and not applying in other states. I mostly just bristle at the marketing and messaging coming from WSF regarding auction tags that I think is no more than rhetoric to appease us and perpetuate their auction system to the benefit of a few.

So you’re fine with raising the prices for the rest of us now that it won’t affect you?

Most species are down, with sheep feel free to send a thank you letter to your local public lands sheep herder, for the massive decline in many areas.

 

[wind gypsy]

So you’re fine with raising the prices for the rest of us now that it won’t affect you?

Most species are down, with sheep feel free to send a thank you letter to your local public lands sheep herder, for the massive decline in many areas.

Yeah, make sure to buy duckworth clothing and support domestic sheep grazing in the mountains!

 

[Customweld]

Yeah, make sure to buy duckworth clothing and support domestic sheep grazing in the mountains!

The day the range maggots are off the range will be a big win!

 

[idelkslayer]

So you’re fine with raising the prices for the rest of us now that it won’t affect you?

Most species are down, with sheep feel free to send a thank you letter to your local public lands sheep herder, for the massive decline in many areas.

It's a big leap on your part to assume that because I have had the rare opportunity to hunt sheep in Idaho that I no longer care about the resource and am now supportive of domestic sheep grazing in bighorn range. I would happily pay the fee I suggested if I was still applying for sheep. It does still affect me in that I have friends and family who I would like to have the opportunity to draw tags and I would love to see bighorn populations grow. In my current situation I would gladly pay it as the application fee for mountain goats which get far less attention than bighorns and are in no less precarious position biologically.

Your accusation does nothing to address the point that auction funds are not needed in order to fund sheep conservation. They are just the easy solution that we have come to tolerate, either because we fall for the WSF marketing or because we are unwilling to pursue other options.

Yeah, make sure to buy duckworth clothing and support domestic sheep grazing in the mountains!

Yep, now that I got mine I want them all dead of M. Ovi, brilliant leap in logic there. I want domestic sheep out of bighorn range just as much as anyone else.

 

[PMcGee]

There was some objection to the idea of charging the broader hunting population or taxes for sheep conservation when many hunters don't care about sheep at all. So I thought of an alternative. I looked up Idaho's auction tag price over the last 5 years. It's different here because the tag can only be used in the most coveted unit every other year, so our auction tag price varies between ~200K and 300K depending on the year. Call it an average of $250K. There were ~4000 applicants for bighorn tags. $250K/4000 is equal to $62.50 per applicant. Charge applicants a non refundable $75 application fee and BAM we don't need auction money anymore. I'd pay it.

For further context, the Raffle tag in Idaho has been selling ~20,000 entries to 2,000 applicants the last few years. Ticket prices vary depending on how many you buy (1+$20, 6 for $100, 25 for $250) ranging from $10-20 per entry. On average those applicants are paying over $100 and some over $200 for an entry in the raffle. So I don't think it is outside the realm of reason to think that applicants in the draw would be willing to pay $75 per application.

My main point is that we don't "need" auction money. WSF is pissing on our heads and telling us it's rain. We could find ways to replace it, but auction money is easy and has a 30 year history that is difficult to change.

I can also acknowledge that the existence of an auction tag does not change my drawing odds. As a matter of fact I am already out of the bighorn game in Idaho and not applying in other states. I mostly just bristle at the marketing and messaging coming from WSF regarding auction tags that I think is no more than rhetoric to appease us and perpetuate their auction system to the benefit of a few.

I’d be willing to pay that when I applied. I think you would lose some people maybe not? I’d still be for auction tags the way they are right now. Nobody has had a good argument yet that shows why they’re bad for hunting right now. The most used argument that the money raised really hasn’t done anything doesn’t hold water. Why would we be looking for other ways to raise money that in the long run doesn’t help anything? Yes I would be against auction tags if they started taking them out of the general pool and taking chances away from the average person. I think most people would.

 

[Mike Islander]

This kind of mentality is so sad. You shouldn't simp for the rich and hope it trickles down to the rest of us. We have proven that doesn't work through our economic strategy over the last 40 years.

Raffle tags are a much fairer system. I truthfully don't care if they don't raise as much money. If the resource is in need of money, then we should be looking for new ways to raise revenue for our game departments. We don't need millionaires taking tags from the general pool so they can brag to their buddies.

Hater's gonna hate. You are so wrong about this.

 

[cuerro viejo]

If auctioning a few tags is the best thing for the resource, then auctioning all of the tags is obviously better. You just don't care about the animals.

It’s obvious we made vastly different life choices and I don’t need to project or insult to make my point.

Regardless it’s the current best way to supplement the cost of helping to keep them on the land scape without needing to tax the entire state, all while still offering ample tags tag opportunities for everyone.

 

[WRO]

It's a big leap on your part to assume that because I have had the rare opportunity to hunt sheep in Idaho that I no longer care about the resource and am now supportive of domestic sheep grazing in bighorn range. I would happily pay the fee I suggested if I was still applying for sheep. It does still affect me in that I have friends and family who I would like to have the opportunity to draw tags and I would love to see bighorn populations grow. In my current situation I would gladly pay it as the application fee for mountain goats which get far less attention than bighorns and are in no less precarious position biologically.

Your accusation does nothing to address the point that auction funds are not needed in order to fund sheep conservation. They are just the easy solution that we have come to tolerate, either because we fall for the WSF marketing or because we are unwilling to pursue other options.

Yep, now that I got mine I want them all dead of M. Ovi, brilliant leap in logic there. I want domestic sheep out of bighorn range just as much as anyone else.

The only groups to my knowledge fighting to get land maggots off sheep habitat at both national and local levels holding blm accountable are fnaws and wsf.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[WRO]

If auctioning a few tags is the best thing for the resource, then auctioning all of the tags is obviously better. You just don't care about the animals.

That’s quite the jump in logic..