Competition grows to auction off coveted hunting tags

[SAJ-99]

L

No way would I ask @mtmuley to burn one of his spots for you. I'll burn few if you can keep up. Remember Lewis and Clark about starved to death when they came through here. Today is the glory years.

Don’t worry, we’re not leaving the Super 8. But as outfitters in this deal, I expect you to get the pizza. And no Pizza Hut. I have standards.

I’m pretty sure they about starved because ole Sacajawea was sick of their shit and just wanted to head back home. Same reason people get pushed off cruise ships.

 

[Carnage2011]

It does though, at least IMO.

Moose, Deer, Elk, Ram, Goat tag(s) awarded to the Montana Society of Association Executives.
The conservation organizations who are specifically involved in Fish, Wildlife, and Parks conservation / enhancements lose.

IMO, It should be valued as a conservation organization win. Not weavers society, realtors association, etc.

Meh, online forums we're all full of opinions.

Based on the commissions comments about not really having guidelines to follow, it’s hard to say if it’s just a money grab or not. However, if (insert conservation org here) was awarded a tag and sold it for 10k at a banquet, is that a win? Or would it be better for conservation if the school of underwater basket weaving auctioned it off for 500k? I mean, in one instance 9k goes to FWP and with the other 450k goes.

To be clear, I really don’t care who holds the auction. As long as there is only one tag per species and 90% of the money goes to the department. If it gets outside of those parameters then I’ll change my mind.

There are advocates that really believe auction tags go against the North American Model. I understand that and can see their argument.

There are others that have a problem with auction tags because they believe only wealthy people can afford them. That’s a BS argument. At what point is something too expensive? When 90% of people can’t afford it? Or is it when 50% of people can’t afford it? I see people buying 90k dollar trucks complaining about rich people. Maybe they should sell that truck and buy a tag if they want it so bad.

Since there seems to be some grey areas regarding the requirements for the tag. Perhaps someone needs to push for conservation organizations to be the only one’s eligible to auction them off. I don’t know what that process would look like, but I’m sure @Ben Lamb would have an idea.

 

[BigHornRam]

Based on the commissions comments about not really having guidelines to follow, it’s hard to say if it’s just a money grab or not. However, if (insert conservation org here) was awarded a tag and sold it for 10k at a banquet, is that a win? Or would it be better for conservation if the school of underwater basket weaving auctioned it off for 500k? I mean, in one instance 9k goes to FWP and with the other 450k goes.

To be clear, I really don’t care who holds the auction. As long as there is only one tag per species and 90% of the money goes to the department. If it gets outside of those parameters then I’ll change my mind.

There are advocates that really believe auction tags go against the North American Model. I understand that and can see their argument.

There are others that have a problem with auction tags because they believe only wealthy people can afford them. That’s a BS argument. At what point is something too expensive? When 90% of people can’t afford it? Or is it when 50% of people can’t afford it? I see people buying 90k dollar trucks complaining about rich people. Maybe they should sell that truck and buy a tag if they want it so bad.

Since there seems to be some grey areas regarding the requirements for the tag. Perhaps someone needs to push for conservation organizations to be the only one’s eligible to auction them off. I don’t know what that process would look like, but I’m sure @Ben Lamb would have an idea.

Don't forgot to do the Pittman 3× multiplier when calculating what the tag brings in.

 

[BigHornRam]

Don’t worry, we’re not leaving the Super 8. But as outfitters in this deal, I expect you to get the pizza. And no Pizza Hut. I have standards.

I’m pretty sure they about starved because ole Sacajawea was sick of their shit and just wanted to head back home. Same reason people get pushed off cruise ships.

Sacajawea was getting tired of eating horse meat. A friend has some monster bucks hanging out in his pumpkin patch. That sounds more your speed if you know how to shoot a bow? Hamilton has a good brewery with wood fired pizza. As long as the cooks aren't drunk and burn it.

 

[westbranch]

Sacajawea was getting tired of eating horse meat. A friend has some monster bucks hanging out in his pumpkin patch. That sounds more your speed if you know how to shoot a bow? Hamilton has a good brewery with wood fired pizza. As long as the cooks aren't drunk and burn it.

Had some of that pizza a couple weeks ago. Good stuff.

 

[Eric Albus]

Funded. Exactly. Follow the money flow. MOGEI pays for a hunt for some deserving individual and the money goes to a member of MOGA. I would love to see an audit done in a couple of years to where this money went. Looks like it will be hard to avoid self-dealing. But as long as Montanans are ok with that I guess.

I can tell you where the money usually goes.

Right back into the EI, as most of us take payment enough to cover expenses, or donate it all back into this program.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Since there seems to be some grey areas regarding the requirements for the tag. Perhaps someone needs to push for conservation organizations to be the only one’s eligible to auction them off. I don’t know what that process would look like, but I’m sure @Ben Lamb would have an idea.

Here are the relevant statutes:

Moose
Sheep
Goat
Elk
Deer

Moose, Sheep and Goat are statutorily required to be offered at auction only. Elk & deer are both authorized for lottery. All are limited to conservation organizations by statute. As others have said, 90% goes to the state and is placed in a special revenue account that is authorized for spending under House Bill 5 for those specific species. MTWSF has been the most successful in terms of auctioning the Governor's Tag for sheep, and they've done awesome work for sheep and just about every other species in Montana. They're also statutorily limited to auction by law.

I tend to fall in the camp of not supporting transferable tags unless they are structured like governors tags. The only other transferable tag that I know of in MT is where you can donate your license/permit to a combat veteran. The landowner set-aside isn't technically a transferable tag as it is just a sponsored licenses that never enters into the possession of the landowner and is controlled by the agency - but honestly, it serves the same purpose with better dressing.

The WY commission licenses are good example of transferable tags that fund entities rather than the species that is auctioned off, and I've benefited from those in terms of working for organizations that received them and raffled them off (and I buy tickets for those raffles!). Those tags have gone to groups like the Boy Scouts of America, etc and have not been used to benefit the resource, but simply to benefit the organization offering the license.

As far as Big Hearts getting the license, I'm all for it. I think that entity does amazing work giving back to those in need. I would suggest folks spend some time looking into what they do and how they do it. My understanding is that all trips are donated by the outfitter and no funds exchange hands between the entities. The charity may pay for things like food and other consumables, but honestly, I've seen what this program does and it's a damned good one.

As far as MT governor tags, I'm not sure the groups that get these make any money on them. WSF spends a ton to market this tag, put on Sheep Show, etc. They're not auctioning the tag off for their own coffers, it's for the critters and the work that is done to benefit them. DU used theirs in the past to match with PR and the Migratory Bird Account funded by the sale of waterfowl licenses for more & better habitat for ducks & geese (and roosters and deer, and...).

 

[SAJ-99]

I can tell you where the money usually goes.

Right back into the EI, as most of us take payment enough to cover expenses, or donate it all back into this program.

I expected as much. But it still doesn’t tell us where the money goes. Meals for recipients? Fine. Marketing and infrastructure for the auction process? Gray area. I don’t doubt Big Hearts does great things for people. That isn’t really my point at all. It’s that this money from selling a public resource should be spent on the improving the public resource and nothing else.

DU used theirs in the past to match with PR and the Migratory Bird Account funded by the sale of waterfowl licenses for more & better habitat for ducks & geese (and roosters and deer, and...).

Sounds like the bar is pretty high to match what DU brought in.
You have a warmer, softer heart than me. I don’t like the idea of the agency determining which few of the 2million charities in the US gets to auction off tags.

I’m sure it is expensive to put on the sheep show, but I don’t think it would be expensive to market an online auction in the age of social media. But as someone said, FWP runs a lottery system for its tags and screws it up every year. So I have learned to never underestimate its incompetence. This whole thing seem ripe for tin-foil hat conspiracies once the results come out.

 

[Ben Lamb]

I expected as much. But it still doesn’t tell us where the money goes. Meals for recipients? Fine. Marketing and infrastructure for the auction process? Gray area. I don’t doubt Big Hearts does great things for people. That isn’t really my point at all. It’s that this money from selling a public resource should be spent on the improving the public resource and nothing else.


Sounds like the bar is pretty high to match what DU brought in.
You have a warmer, softer heart than me. I don’t like the idea of the agency determining which few of the 2million charities in the US gets to auction off tags.

I’m sure it is expensive to put on the sheep show, but I don’t think it would be expensive to market an online auction in the age of social media. But as someone said, FWP runs a lottery system for its tags and screws it up every year. So I have learned to never underestimate its incompetence. This whole thing seem ripe for tin-foil hat conspiracies once the results come out.

Here is a page that has a bunch of information on Big Hearts. It doesn't look like anyone is cutting a fat hog here:

Montana Outfitters and Guides Education Institute | Montana City, MT | Cause IQ

BIG HEARTS UNDER THE BIG SKY (BHUBS) - In 2015, the Montana Outfitter's & Guides Education Institute's BHUBS program provided six adventure-trips to our partne...

www.causeiq.com

For the auction, you're not just courting the folks who can buy a $20 ticket. You're going after whales - and that's a massive investment in time and personnel from a development standpoint. When we see the end result of a bidding war at sheep show, you're not seeing the mountain of work before that to ensure that enough people were there to drive that price up, the advertising, special promotions, etc. Staff time, material costs, etc all increase the overhead and 10% usually just doesn't cover it. We tend to focus on sheep show because that's the highest dollar example, but it's no different than others. MTBHA's hill to climb is going to be relative to putting that information in front of enough people given the complexities of social media algorithms, personal opinions of the organization, cost of promotion/advertising etc. The mule deer tag has traditionally gone for around $40K, IIRC. That's 2,000 people buying 1 $20 tag. Most fundraising emails/letters, etc see about 1-3% return. So if they have to cover 200,000 to get that return, it's a ton of work and effort for what amounts to $4K in return.

I too dislike what these tags have become, but that distaste, at least in the Montana Governor's tags, is tamped down with the fact that 90% returns to the resource and is spent by the agency. If I could get rid of them, I would, but I also recognize that the majority of these licenses have been used for the benefit of all wildlife and all Montanans (and the nonresident guests).

 

[SAJ-99]

It doesn't look like anyone is cutting a fat hog here

I repeat, it is bad optics. FWP awards the right to sell a coveted tag to a 501c3 run by the guy who lobbies FWP and the legislature heavily for outfitters and guides and receives a paycheck for doing that task as well as getting paid for running the 501c3. Nonprofits are notorious for doing shady stuff with money. That’s why there are 2 million of them. A public agency should go to great lengths to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest. This would have never passed the smell test in a lot of states.
Fat hog or not, that money should go to the resource. We will see what they can get for it.

 

[shoots-straight]

That money provides a lot of benefit to some of these animals. We don’t sell enough sheep tags for them to support themselves. One auction tag per species isn’t hurting anything.

I'm really wanting to believe in this statement. BUT the more money we make and invest in our Wildlife seems to be doing very little to increase opportunity for the average Montana Resident hunter. I think all the species we action off with the title "Governors tag" are less today than at it's inception.

Maybe I'm just down today.

Change my mind!

 

[Eric Albus]

I repeat, it is bad optics. FWP awards the right to sell a coveted tag to a 501c3 run by the guy who lobbies FWP and the legislature heavily for outfitters and guides and receives a paycheck for doing that task as well as getting paid for running the 501c3. Nonprofits are notorious for doing shady stuff with money. That’s why there are 2 million of them. A public agency should go to great lengths to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest. This would have never passed the smell test in a lot of states.
Fat hog or not, that money should go to the resource. We will see what they can get for it.

You can rest easier, as he has retired as ED of MOGA.

 

[Ben Lamb]

I repeat, it is bad optics. FWP awards the right to sell a coveted tag to a 501c3 run by the guy who lobbies FWP and the legislature heavily for outfitters and guides and receives a paycheck for doing that task as well as getting paid for running the 501c3. Nonprofits are notorious for doing shady stuff with money. That’s why there are 2 million of them. A public agency should go to great lengths to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest. This would have never passed the smell test in a lot of states.
Fat hog or not, that money should go to the resource. We will see what they can get for it.

RMEF, WSF, DU, MDF, BHA all lobby the commission and legislature. Where do you draw the line?

90% of the revenue does go to the resource. That's a good compromise, IMO, if we are to keep these transferable licenses.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Decent write up from a couple of years ago: https://fwp.mt.gov/binaries/content/assets/fwp/montana-outdoors/2021/auctiontags.pdf

Here are the current ARM rules: https://rules.mt.gov/gateway/ruleno.asp?RN=12.3.801

 

[SAJ-99]

RMEF, WSF, DU, MDF, BHA all lobby the commission and legislature. Where do you draw the line?

90% of the revenue does go to the resource. That's a good compromise, IMO, if we are to keep these transferable licenses.

Where to draw the line is an excellent question. I think the smell test on those national organizations is different than giving it a local trade organization that largely relies on the same public resource that is being auctioned.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Where to draw the line is an excellent question. I think the smell test on those national organizations is different than giving it a local trade organization that largely relies on the same public resource that is being auctioned.

To be clear, the Education 501 (C)(3) is different than the Trade Organization. same people, different mission. That entity has not lobbied the Legislature, as far as I know. it's more closely aligned with Wounded Warriors, etc.

MOGA didn't get the license, the C3 charity did.

 

[SAJ-99]

To be clear, the Education 501 (C)(3) is different than the Trade Organization. same people, different mission. That entity has not lobbied the Legislature, as far as I know. it's more closely aligned with Wounded Warriors, etc.

MOGA didn't get the license, the C3 charity did.

I understand the technical difference, tax forms and such. But that is what we call a distinction without a difference. Minard spent plenty of time talking and eating and drinking with both FWP and legislators while taking a paycheck from the 501c3.

Maybe Montanans would be more up in arms if we could tie Joe and Hunter up in this plot. Of all the FWP bashing, it seems odd that this just flies by as “nothing to see here”.

 

[Ben Lamb]

I understand the technical difference, tax forms and such. But that is what we call a distinction without a difference. Minard spent plenty of time talking and eating and drinking with both FWP and legislators while taking a paycheck from the 501c3.

Maybe Montanans would be more up in arms if we could tie Joe and Hunter up in this plot. Of all the FWP bashing, it seems odd that this just flies by as “nothing to see here”.

I do think it's a critical difference in terms of legal issues that arise beyond the tax implications, etc. The firewalls that have to be put in place when you share leadership like this, or how other groups share leadership on joint C3/C4 efforts is pretty rigid and while MOGA does support BHUBS, they do remain separate. Part of me wonders if folks are just looking for a reason to bash instead of thinking critically through the process, issue and weighing the pro's & cons of the attack.

Every organization that applied is a group that spends a lot of time talking with legislators and commissioners, sponsoring social events, buying dinners and drinks, etc. Should they be ineligible too?

The rules are incredibly vague. Statute and rules are clear that there must be an accounting for how the money is spent. I do think that there is a good system for checks and balances here, but only if that is used. I do think these licenses have been controversy free for a long time not because of low interst, but because of good stewardship on part of the Agency & the NGO's.

I have zero problem calling out FWP when they mess something up. Same with the Commission, but I'm not seeing the boogey man here other than the fact that transferable licenses exist. I do see a great opportunity to tighten the rules up and make these even more aligned with the NAM than they currently are.

 

[bigsky2]

To be clear, the Education 501 (C)(3) is different than the Trade Organization. same people, different mission. That entity has not lobbied the Legislature, as far as I know. it's more closely aligned with Wounded Warriors, etc.

MOGA didn't get the license, the C3 charity did.

I understand the difference, but you said the big three tags are limited to conservation organizations by statute. The charity probably does great things, but it doesn't sound like a conversation organization to me.

 

[SAJ-99]

Every organization that applied is a group that spends a lot of time talking with legislators and commissioners, sponsoring social events, buying dinners and drinks, etc. Should they be ineligible too?

Here are the questions from the application that I wonder what the answers were. C particularly.
c) details of the organization's previous involvement in the conservation of the species hunted under the license;
(d) details of the organization's previous experience in auctions or lotteries;

No those groups should not be ineligible. Conflicts of interest are never white or black, just varying shades of gray. To your point on this being relatively small in $, a national organization has a lot more to lose by playing fast and loose. Looking at this as MOGEI vs DU, the choice should have been clear. DU is a national org with a broader membership base. They plow the money into wetlands conservation and utilize PR money to double the amount. I can’t wait to see how MOGEI uses it.

It seems that FWP lets them keep the 10% to pay for the expenses of the auction. I’m fine with that, I guess, although DU utilized the money much better. I also wouldn’t pretend like there is some hard firewall between these orgs (firewall are always ephemeral). I would bet that the auction is marketed by blasting an email to every email listed on a MOGA member customer list. Hell, it would be my first suggestion. Anyone who ever paid for an outfitter is in the target demographic. No one is going to pay $50k and DIY on the tag, so we are back to our conflict of interest.