thegamegtr
New member
Sorry--was just informed that is was not going to be discussed until Feb.
Last edited:
Idaho--Governor's Tags
- Thread starter thegamegtr
- Start date
thegamegtr
New member
I heard about it from ISCAC. What is your opinion on the Gov. tags? Do you belong to any of the organizations that make up ISCAC?
I have mixed feelings about them. They are a good way to make money to help F&G and we all know they need help but the fact that they can be manipulated into a simple "privileged get more privileges" system makes me against them. I don't think they have become a necessary evil as of yet so I would still not support them. I get my info on bills from the state legislature web page. It's a better way to get all the info. I am a member of some of the ISCAC organizations but I just signed up for their eblasts after reading your post.
thegamegtr
New member
I personally am not a fan. It seems as if we are selling off our biggest and best animals to people who have A TON of money. I, a school teacher, will never be able to afford a Gov.Tag. I do not mind the Super Hunt that Idaho does. It does give the advantage to a person with a bigger wallet, but I still have a chance. Am I missing something? If anyone has an opinion on the topic, let me know. It is being pushed in Idaho. Thanks
The devil is in the details. If administered correctly, "Governor's" tag programs can be very productive and beneficial. But if rules or oversight are lax, these programs may only provide another avenue for the "rich" to cut in line and for "conservation" organizations and the State to mis-allocate funds.
I believe there are several requirements necessary of a Governor's tag program to ensure that it is beneficial to wildlife and equitable to all hunters. Those include:
The basic structure of Colorado's program is as follows:
I believe there are several requirements necessary of a Governor's tag program to ensure that it is beneficial to wildlife and equitable to all hunters. Those include:
- A very small number of tags available for a species (2-6 tags)
- An equal number of auction and raffle tags for each species
- Reasonably priced raffle tickets and a limit to the number of tickets a person can buy
- Non-transferable raffle tags
- A great majority of funds raised should go back to the State
- Funds raised should be spend only on management, research, habitat development, land easements/acquisition, or education
- A Project Advisory Committee should be established to determine what projects are funded
- A full report to the PAC of all approved projects and an accounting of funds spent should be required annually
The basic structure of Colorado's program is as follows:
- One auction tag and one raffle tag for sheep, mountain goat and moose
- Two auction tags and two raffle tags for deer, elk and pronghorn
- Raffle tags are limited in price to $25 each, and in number to 25 per individual
- Tags are not transferable
- Non-profit conservation organizations are awarded tags based on a rigorous RFP process
- Non-profits keep 25% of funds raised and return 75% to the state.
- The PAC includes members of the non-profit groups
- The tag renewal RFP process requires detailed reporting of projects funded with the 25% allocated to the non-profit
- Northern Sangre de Cristo RM bighorn sheep transplant - $32,600
- Bighorn sheep inventory surveys technician - $6,300
- Pool Table S-36 prescribed burn - $6,000
- De Beque bighorn sheep population assessment and monitoring - $20,000
- Falls Gulch bighorn sheep habitat enhancement - $30,000
- Effects of density manipulation on bighorn sheep lamb recruitment - $101,000
- Risk-mapping disease transmission between sub-populations of bighorn sheep and domestic sheep - $74,000
- Desert sheep augmentation of the Middle Dolores River - $38,450
- Development of a Raccoonpox-vectored Pasteurellaceae vaccine for bighorn sheep - $49,268
- S-26 bighorn sheep habitat improvement - $20,000
- Poudre Canyon prescribed burn - $40,000
- Big Thompson Canyon interpretive signs - $7,233
- Hayman Burn GPS collars - $6,000
- Ongoing vaccine research - $5,000
- Total - $435,851
Last edited:
I meant to include the Colorado Auction and Raffle Regulations in the last post.
Muley Crazy
Member
all that money was made just in sheep tags?
In Colorado, moose, mountain goat and sheep money is pooled, and can be spent on any species. We receive very few project proposals for moose or goats, but usually receive far more sheep proposals than there is money to fund. In 2011, we received only one goat project and no moose projects. Moose have been funded heavily in the past, though. Mountain goats require very little management beyond hunters to keep them in check. Bighorn sheep provide a little more than two thirds of the total pool of money.
Likewise, deer, elk and pronghorn money is pooled, but few pronghorn projects are submitted. Pronghorn tags don't earn very much money overall. There is always more need on the deer and elk side than money available.
In the years 2007-2011, the following was earned from the tags of each species:
- Bighorn sheep - $669,425
- Mountain goat - $152,075
- Moose - $178,195
- Elk - $367,047
- Deer - $908,145
- Pronghorn - $77,617
- Total - $2,352,504
You may note a difference in Colorado's program when compared to some other state programs: impeccable accounting of funds.
Oak- Just curious why one of your criteria is that "a great majority" of the funds go to the state? IMO, it should all go to the state after the overhead of conducting the raffle is covered.
That's always been a gripe of mine for Utah. The state provides the tags for the auction, but other orgs get the money. Doesn't make sense to me. I guess I have less trust in some of the orgs in putting it back where it needs to be vs. the state. But then again, it's easier to find out where the money goes when the state spends it as well.
That's always been a gripe of mine for Utah. The state provides the tags for the auction, but other orgs get the money. Doesn't make sense to me. I guess I have less trust in some of the orgs in putting it back where it needs to be vs. the state. But then again, it's easier to find out where the money goes when the state spends it as well.
I don't have an issue with that, if the state wants to conduct the raffles and auctions. It takes a whole lot of volunteer hours for organizations to to do that.
I'm pretty sure you have heard me griping about Utah's system as well? It all has to do with oversight and accounting. The State can do it or not. I guess it is up to sportsmen to ensure that the State is administering the programs to their standards. But 99% of disenchanted sportsmen will do nothing more than take 5 minutes to type out their gripe on an internet message board.
FWIW, another conservation org in CO tried to get a bill introduced last year that would change the split to 50/50. We opposed that effort because we have a good working relationship with CPW, and we know that the State will spend the money prudently, just as we do.
I'm not going to change any minds here. Just pointing out why I think they can be beneficial if properly administered. It is up to sportsmen to make sure that happens. But most are too apathetic, so they either oppose the programs altogether (easy), or sit on their hands and let them be mis-managed (easy).
Good info, Oak. That is why Rocky Mountain Bighorn Society has a free slate on this site to do all they want in promoting the good work they do and the raffle tags they sell. You guys are raising money that is making a difference on the ground.
BuzzH
Well-known member
A couple comments...
I reluctantly agree with a very limited number of Governors tags for all the reasons that Oak mentioned.
I also agree, that sportsmen have got to stay on top of these programs and demand precise accounting for all the funds.
One thing I personally like to see is that money raised for each species be used to fund issues specific to that species. Wyoming does it that way and seems to work quite well. Sheep definately get a vast majority of the attention, and in many cases rightfully so as there are lots of management issues with them. However, there is a lot of different funding sources and groups that also fund sheep management, habiat, research, etc.. Not so much with other species like moose and goats.
The other thing that I dont particulary care for with Governors tags is that I feel like many states start relying on these funds way too much. It seems odd that in the past, license sales without any governors tags, were able to get the job done. Now, it would appear that without the addditional overnor tag money, wildlife would suffer.
It also allows G&F agencies, IMO, to keep resident license fees low...way lower than they should be.
I guess maybe I'm still old-school in that I believe that hunters should pay enough in license fees to largely fund all, or at least most, of the projects. I realize that cant happen in some cases, but I wonder how all those things were funded in the past without Governors tags? I think a big part of the problem is that resident license fees havent even kept up with inflation in many states.
Whether or not you agree with Governors tags, I still believe its largely up to the sportsmen in each state to decide if its worth peddling the publics wildlife resources to the highest bidder or not. If you choose to grab the additional funding via GT's, make sure there is accounting and keep a close eye on it. Also, make sure that the funds are being used on worthwhile projects and not just being spent because it can be.
I reluctantly agree with a very limited number of Governors tags for all the reasons that Oak mentioned.
I also agree, that sportsmen have got to stay on top of these programs and demand precise accounting for all the funds.
One thing I personally like to see is that money raised for each species be used to fund issues specific to that species. Wyoming does it that way and seems to work quite well. Sheep definately get a vast majority of the attention, and in many cases rightfully so as there are lots of management issues with them. However, there is a lot of different funding sources and groups that also fund sheep management, habiat, research, etc.. Not so much with other species like moose and goats.
The other thing that I dont particulary care for with Governors tags is that I feel like many states start relying on these funds way too much. It seems odd that in the past, license sales without any governors tags, were able to get the job done. Now, it would appear that without the addditional overnor tag money, wildlife would suffer.
It also allows G&F agencies, IMO, to keep resident license fees low...way lower than they should be.
I guess maybe I'm still old-school in that I believe that hunters should pay enough in license fees to largely fund all, or at least most, of the projects. I realize that cant happen in some cases, but I wonder how all those things were funded in the past without Governors tags? I think a big part of the problem is that resident license fees havent even kept up with inflation in many states.
Whether or not you agree with Governors tags, I still believe its largely up to the sportsmen in each state to decide if its worth peddling the publics wildlife resources to the highest bidder or not. If you choose to grab the additional funding via GT's, make sure there is accounting and keep a close eye on it. Also, make sure that the funds are being used on worthwhile projects and not just being spent because it can be.
Page A5 of today's Idaho Statesman has an article that states that the Governor's Big Game Auction Tags proposal has Passed committee. The proposal was written by Sen. Steve Bair of Blackfoot, Idaho. And would allow up to three tags each for elk, antelope, and deer. As well as one moose tag and one bighorn sheep tag, depending on wildlife population levels. There goes eleven tags I will never be able to take advantage of.
Since this is my first post, a brief intro is in order. I have been reading posts on this site for a couple of months and decided to join. I am an avid on your own hunter here in Idaho. Both Big game and upland bird hunting takes up much of my free time in the fall and winter. Spend my springs and summers shooting praire dogs, training my bird dog and fishing. My favorite big game hunting is elk and deer in the backcountry of Idaho. I am a member of RMEF, and learned about this site from reading the article in Bugle magazine about Randy and the OYOA show. I was impressed after watching all the videos on this site and am tempted to get cable tv just to watch his shows. All the other hunting shows are a joke. Keep up the good work and keep showing the public what responsible hunting is all about.
Since this is my first post, a brief intro is in order. I have been reading posts on this site for a couple of months and decided to join. I am an avid on your own hunter here in Idaho. Both Big game and upland bird hunting takes up much of my free time in the fall and winter. Spend my springs and summers shooting praire dogs, training my bird dog and fishing. My favorite big game hunting is elk and deer in the backcountry of Idaho. I am a member of RMEF, and learned about this site from reading the article in Bugle magazine about Randy and the OYOA show. I was impressed after watching all the videos on this site and am tempted to get cable tv just to watch his shows. All the other hunting shows are a joke. Keep up the good work and keep showing the public what responsible hunting is all about.
thegamegtr
New member
Page A5 of today's Idaho Statesman has an article that states that the Governor's Big Game Auction Tags proposal has Passed committee. The proposal was written by Sen. Steve Bair of Blackfoot, Idaho.
Sorry--but, I am not sure of what happens next. It passed committee--what happens next? I constantly check the IDFG web site, and they have not made any effort to inform the sportsmen of Idaho about this proposal.
Oad--I appreciate the information you have provided. I can only hope that Idaho will be smart enough to follow the model set up by Colorado. However, I have no faith the this will happen.
Sorry--but, I am not sure of what happens next. It passed committee--what happens next? I constantly check the IDFG web site, and they have not made any effort to inform the sportsmen of Idaho about this proposal.
Oad--I appreciate the information you have provided. I can only hope that Idaho will be smart enough to follow the model set up by Colorado. However, I have no faith the this will happen.
Similar threads
