$315K Mule Deer Tag

[The Hedgehog]

This is the drought map. Tag will be filled inside the blue circle.


View attachment 174053

I think I paid around $300 to hunt in that circle for a mule deer during November in 2005. I got skunked.

 

[Trial153]

I would love to see a list of tags state by state that get acutioned off, raffled or given as political favors and capital. I think the total number would shock a few people.
I think in the end it's a loser for hunting and conservation when you factor the cost of disenfranchisement.

 

[LopeHunter]

I love it when people support conservation this way. As long as tags for auction are very limited in number, it is a good tool for funds. Some states do it well, and then there is Utah.

Agreed. I like auctioning 1 tag per species and raffling one tag per species. Raffle entries limited to 10 per person and not transferable. All other tags go into draw system. I am not a fan of set asides for anyone whether be outfitters, guided hunters, landowners, disabled, vets, seniors, kids, friends of the fallen ladies, etc. Sometimes I wonder about the wisdom of residents getting a set aside. Washington State tosses everyone in the same bucket for the draw though costs vary, as usual. I think we are all special and part of making America special is having a shot at things whether Rickie Rich or Six-Pack Sammy.

 

[LopeHunter]

I think I paid around $300 to hunt in that circle for a mule deer during November in 2005. I got skunked.

The instructor in AZ when I took my "earn a point" hunter's ed course (3rd one this lifetime, 4th if count the archery proficiency event) the instructor mentioned that there are very large mule deer in that unit though not many and if you hold out for a monster then may very well eat the tag. Is about like Utah in you get hunting parties helping out the tag holder so creates a lot of road use and game cameras on every water source. I imagine the auction hunter will be walked into position and then he will send a round down range though doubtful will be a world record this year. Bonus points if the hunter installed the scope himself and sighted in himself. What ever floats his boat, I suppose. I wonder if is on his first marriage or he upgrades that trophy as well every few years?

 

[huntin24/7]

I think I paid around $300 to hunt in that circle for a mule deer during November in 2005. I got skunked.

If you got skunked, that sounds like a tuff hunt. Did you see any big deer?

 

[Oak]

I would love to see a list of tags state by state that get acutioned off, raffled or given as political favors and capital. I think the total number would shock a few people.
I think in the end it's a loser for hunting and conservation when you factor the cost of disenfranchisement.

Colorado has 9 auction licenses and 9 raffle licenses ( 2 each deer, elk, and pronghorn, and one each moose, sheep, and mountain goat). However, there were 2,330 elk and 10,858 deer landowner vouchers issued in 2020.

 

[Oak]

Colorado has 9 auction licenses and 9 raffle licenses ( 2 each deer, elk, and pronghorn, and one each moose, sheep, and mountain goat). However, there were 2,330 elk and 10,858 deer landowner vouchers issued in 2020.

Hmm, not sure how I forgot Ranching for Wildlife (deer, elk, pronghorn, moose, and bear) and Bighorn Sheep Access Program transferable licenses.

 

[Sasquatchewan]

I love it when people support conservation this way. As long as tags for auction are very limited in number, it is a good tool for funds. Some states do it well, and then there is Utah.

I don't see the negative in auctioning a couple tags per species. In the grand scheme of things, the money will go farther than sparing a couple more mule deer every year.

 

[Matt R]

I don't see the negative in auctioning a couple tags per species. In the grand scheme of things, the money will go farther than sparing a couple more mule deer every year.

I tend to agree notwithstanding any disagreements with the NA model. The CO landowner vouchers have always given me heartburn, especially considering the fact that some are valid on surrounding public lands throughout a unit rather than just on a discrete private parcel.

 

[Desk Pop]

I don't see the negative in auctioning a couple tags per species. In the grand scheme of things, the money will go farther than sparing a couple more mule deer every year.

Depends on your definition of a couple. If you mean two, then I agree. If a couple classifies what Utah does, big difference.

 

[Desk Pop]

Idaho tried really hard to get more auction tags. Overwhelming public support of keeping it how it is won out. Legislatures liked the idea because it helped fund F&G, and pushed hard because Idaho, by law, could have more offered.

It also points to the bigger problem with many F&G agencies. They know how to spend and spend and are always looking for ways to get more funds, but they usually neglect ways to look at their budgets and cut fat.

 

[TheTone]

Idaho tried really hard to get more auction tags. Overwhelming public support of keeping it how it is won out. Legislatures liked the idea because it helped fund F&G, and pushed hard because Idaho, by law, could have more offered.

It also points to the bigger problem with many F&G agencies. They know how to spend and spend and are always looking for ways to get more funds, but they usually neglect ways to look at their budgets and cut fat.

Idaho legislators and a couple rich guys tried really hard to get more in Idaho, not the dept.

 

[Sasquatchewan]

Depends on your definition of a couple. If you mean two, then I agree. If a couple classifies what Utah does, big difference.

A couple is literally two.

A few is three or more.

 

[1_pointer]

I don't see the negative in auctioning a couple tags per species. In the grand scheme of things, the money will go farther than sparing a couple more mule deer every year.

I don't disagree. However, I've not seen a good reason why the F&G doesn't do these instead of giving them to groups to auction/raffle.