BigHornRam
Well-known member
This clearly illustrates you don't understand research funding, and you don't really know Bob Garrett...
I'm familiar with Dr. Garrott. He's excellent at his job, and a significant part of that job is hounding money. It's pretty ridiculous to suggest that someone with a track record like Garrott's would not have been able to find other sources of funding if it weren't for auction tags. He would have submitted proposals to other outlets, just like wildlife researchers the world over have been doing for decades. He would NOT have sat around moping about the work he couldn't get done because he didn't have auction tag money.
Is it helpful to have another revenue stream? Of course. Would management and research grind to a halt if auction tags didn't exist? No.
Compared to an annual FWP budget of +/- $80 million. Back to the original issue I have with the article.... where does most of that annual budget come from?
I took that number from here:
http://leg.mt.gov/content/Publications/fiscal/Budget-Books/2017/Fiscal-Report/section_c/5201-00summary.pdf
We're getting off in the weeds here, and I think we've lost the original discussion so I'll step aside. But this notion that auction tag revenues are to thank for the lion's share of wildlife management funding is simply not true.
Dr Garrott has found a good source for his funding and bighorn sheep are that source. I am happy with that. No one has said that auction tag revenues provide the lion's share of wildlife management funding. I said that the sheep auction tags provide a significant amount of dollars