Tag welfare

Which of these should go?

  • Total voters
    79
  • Poll closed .
Pucky Freak

Pucky Freak

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 4, 2019
Messages
5,076
Location
Iowa
Transferable LO tags - NM straightforward sell to highest bidder, ID $ donation for a donated tag, and similar scenarios.

One Shot - Trophy antelope tags doled out to VIPs who get to bypass the draw.

Outfitter Pools - NM is the most obvious, but NV has some too. OR has a lot, but maybe less-noticed. WY and AK have de facto outfitter pools through the wilderness rule, and species-specific guides respectively.

Utah - maybe an entire clean slate is needed to manage wildlife. But would locals just rebuild a totally corrupt agency anyways since they are tolerating one now?

I did not include the MT $20 elk tag as a survey choice as I think this is more of a “you get what you pay for” than welfare. Block Management might look like welfare if owners set rules to benefit their own friends and family while collecting a state stipend, but in the end this might be more about loose regulation than true engineered welfare.
 
Oh wow so many great choices and so little time! I’d pick all of them except I am not familiar with the one shot lope choice.

You should also list SFW with UDWR along with the governor they are all in bed together.
Lots of perks for the WY outfitters too but at least the state NR quota makes up for some of that.
 
I will say that the majority of the rank and file folks at the Utah DWR are good people and try to do their best. The problem is the Wildlife board. Our current board is made up of mostly SFW puppets. They do what they're told and toe the line.
 
Last edited:
If private landowners sell tags, the tags should only be able to be used on the landowner's land.

I still do not like it though. The North American conservation model is based on everyone "owning" the wildlife. If you own land and feel entitled to money because it has wild critters on it, sell it or build a big ass fence to keep them out.

Idaho has paid people tons of money for crop damage from wildlife, which is complete bs....especially since many of them will refuse hunters and then have IDFG come and cull.
 
IdahoNick said:
This thread should have been titled, "Things that piss DIY public land hunters off most."
Click to expand...
Lots of things could piss off DIY hunters, but I am specifically talking about welfare. By that I mean public G&F dollars transferred directly to private parties. Or, an item of value granted by G&F to a private party that can be exchanged for cash.
 
belshawelk said:
I love the LOP transferable tag dislike. If you owned property you would want to recoup come of the cost of your efforts for wildlife.
Click to expand...
If you want to recoup habitat improvement costs, sell hunting access. That way hunter tag dollars go to IF&G. Alternatively, many states have programs that pay landowners with public funds to improve wildlife habitat.

I concur with the principle that of being compensated. I have owned land in IA that I could have enrolled in CRP and collected a paycheck, but I used it to keep horses instead. I just disagree with the mechanism of reimbursement being the LOP since there are superior alternatives either available, or could be made available.
 
@belshawelk YOU improve habitat on your land, so transferring the LO tag is not welfare, it’s an exchange, possibly one where your costs exceed the payment received.

The problem with LOP is that the landowner can opt to do zero habitat improvement, or could even degrade the habitat and still get $ indirectly from the state. In that scenario it’s a welfare program.
 
There are land owner tags that do make sense or are handled in a fair way.

I just learned about how Kentucky issues elk tags to land owners. From the KY game website:

Voucher Cooperator Elk Permit Program
Request for Follow Up
If you own or lease 100 or more acres within the 16 county elk restoration zone please fill out this online request form so a biologist can contact you to discuss signing up for the Voucher Cooperator Elk Permit Program.
  • Under this new system, landowners/lessees receive points for each elk harvested from their enrolled property.
  • Only hunters placed on the property through the KDFWR’s online system will be eligible to contribute harvest points to the landowner’s total.
  • Each harvested animal (bull or cow) counts for one point.
  • Upon the accrual of 10 points, the landowner will receive an either-sex elk permit that can be used the following elk hunting season on the enrolled property or any other property owned or leased by the enrolled landowner or lessee.
  • This elk permit is fully transferable to any legal Kentucky hunter on or before August 15th of the applicable year.
  • Each enrolled voucher property will have a set limit as to the number of hunters allowed on the land at any given point in the hunting season.
  • This number will be based on biologist discretion, landowner input, and the number of elk using the area.
  • Additionally, landowners and lessees will have the option to close elk hunting on their property while other hunting seasons are taking place.

Talk about incentive to try and improve habitat for the elk!
 
ElkFever2 said:
How is this tag welfare? I thought it was an elk reduction program.
Click to expand...
Maybe I'm misunderstood your use of, "Tag welfare".
Elk Shoulder Season is defined around private land for the reduction of elk harming agriculture interest... however, access fees are legal and access is selective as it is private property.
 
ElkFever2 said:
Lots of things could piss off DIY hunters, but I am specifically talking about welfare. By that I mean public G&F dollars transferred directly to private parties. Or, an item of value granted by G&F to a private party that can be exchanged for cash.
Click to expand...

Are the one WY shot antelope tags free? I doubt it. While the licenses are assured I think whoever gets them has to pay. Why should a celebrity who can well afford it get a free tag? In a way it's no different than the NR special where someone willing to pay more gets a separate shot.
 
IdahoNick said:
If private landowners sell tags, the tags should only be able to be used on the landowner's land.

I still do not like it though. The North American conservation model is based on everyone "owning" the wildlife. If you own land and feel entitled to money because it has wild critters on it, sell it or build a big ass fence to keep them out.

Idaho has paid people tons of money for crop damage from wildlife, which is complete bs....especially since many of them will refuse hunters and then have IDFG come and cull.
Click to expand...

Would you allow a special season for those landowners where elk are on their property but not generally on the property during the standard season? The property might be a summer feed zone or a winter rec every zone.
 
seeth07 said:
No, actually I believe they are mega expensice, 4k each.
Click to expand...
Past shooters club participants used to get their tags from WG&F, but as demand for trophy tags in the Lander area went up, they petitioned the WY legislature to set aside guaranteed tags every year, which was granted in 1979. The 56 tags going to past shooters this fall 2020 cost $800, $700 for the tag + $100 annual membership fee. Any of the 56 past shooters can also transfer their tag to anyone they want, and how much $ do you suppose they might receive as an in-kind donation if they wanted it? What’s the going rate of a trophy antelope hunt?
 
ElkFever2 said:
@belshawelk YOU improve habitat on your land, so transferring the LO tag is not welfare, it’s an exchange, possibly one where your costs exceed the payment received.

The problem with LOP is that the landowner can opt to do zero habitat improvement, or could even degrade the habitat and still get $ indirectly from the state. In that scenario it’s a welfare program.
Click to expand...
Yes, and in Oregon LOP tags are ONLY good on the owned property and cannot be used anywhere else. I personally have never sold a tag, I do get 2 and give one to my buddies to hunt with but only on my property. I cannot recoup any of my cost for what I do. That has been my argument for years. No tax break. My issues is and I know not everyone is the same and when I say this its blows up everyone on the site, but here goes. If we did not have private land owners we would NOT have the elk, deer, quail, grouse, antelope we have. We provide feed, shelter, water for them. This benefits EVERYONE and ODFW cannot afford to do it. I also have never pulled a bull tag for my land. I get one but I have always only put in for a cow tag to help with population and fill my freezer. I am a public hunter too, have bunch of points in Colorado, WY and Oregon. I put my money in like everyone else. My only issue is we tend to be able separate good public land hunters from the bad ones, but always have trouble separating good land owners from bad ones and think they are all evil.
 
I’ll comment on the landowner tag issue. My personal opinion is that we should incentivize large landowners to view wildlife as a valuable commodity. There should be a threshold they have to meet to get a landowner tag so that they aren’t being antagonistic towards game animals or are helping the species before benefitting from the sale of a tag. I like the unit wide tags in certain circumstances because the animals may only be on their land outside of the season. To me, this is more of a strategic-more elk on the mountain strategy rather than squabbling over your cut of the pie. We want wintering ground landowners to value the resource or else their actions or inaction could drastically reduce the herds.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
114,251
Messages
2,049,631
Members
36,528
Latest member
dgriess_91

Share this page

Back
Top