GG vetos Sheep and Moose Lottery Option

[Alpine01]

The groups that get the auction tags, clearly profit from them. Why else would they want them, to lose money? Is that your position, that there is no financial gain from MWSF getting those auction tags? Or DU, or MDF, or RMEF?

Oh I am sure that the auction of the sheep tag draws in a lot of folks to the fundraiser that results in a higher level of fundraising associated with other auction items than without the sheep tag. But that is not what you were talking about. You were lamenting the profit being made of a sheep tag. Given these orgs are non-profit orgs, they aren't making any "profit". They are very definately being successful fundraisers for wildlife conservation and getting enough to cover operating expenses. Not unlike BHA.

If you're trying to get me to shut up about wildlife issues, due to the volunteer position I hold with BHA, well, good luck with that. That isn't going to happen, so you need to come up with another chicken-shit ploy.

Never asked you to shut up. Hard to say where that little bit of paranoia came from. Just looking for clarification and a little bit of intellectual honesty. I am all for good debate but draw the line when outright mistruths are hurled out because you don't like someone or something. Ad hominem attacks are your bread-n-butter.

 

[Alpine01]

Is that right?

With all the good being done "for everyone" via these auction tags, Montana should be issuing more sheep tags in 2025 than 1980...but that just isn't the case. That's strange?

Not at all. Takes more than just $'s to get good conservation results. I have no idea whether Montana manages those dollars wisely or not. No amount of auction dollars are going to control the weather. And if domestic sheep grazing is a contributing factor in disease in the bighorn population, then it is going to take far more dollars than can be raised from a sheep tag auction to affect that issue. So what's your point?

If you are going to make the claim that the auction tags "help everyone" you need to convince me of that notion, since there are less tags in 2025 than were issued in 1980.

Never made the claim that the auction tag helps everyone. I did state that if more dollars leads to more sheep on the landscape, that is a good thing. I take it you disagree that a larger sheep population has the potential to result in more tags being made available to all (sheep) hunters. Suggest you work on your reading comprehension.

If the justification for the auction tags is to put more sheep on the mountain (and more tags in average hunters hands) then why has the exact opposite happened?

Again, you need to work on your reading comprehension. Auctions are just another way of generating funding just like raffles, direct appeals for donations, etc. outside of direct government expenditures. And arguably the most efficient in terms of generating the most $/tag. Funding (nominally/hopefully) supports conservation efforts. Are you arguing that funding for conservation has no impact on sheep populations? How do you know that funding to date hasn't at least kept the population from going to zero in Montana? So to take your logic to its natural conclusion - since no amount of fundraising for sheep conservation (auction, raffles, etc.) over the last 40 years has resulted in more tags, it is a complete waste of time and effort and Montana should just throw in the towel.

 

[BuzzH]

Oh I am sure that the auction of the sheep tag draws in a lot of folks to the fundraiser that results in a higher level of fundraising associated with other auction items than without the sheep tag. But that is not what you were talking about. You were lamenting the profit being made of a sheep tag. Given these orgs are non-profit orgs, they aren't making any "profit". They are very definately being successful fundraisers for wildlife conservation and getting enough to cover operating expenses. Not unlike BHA.

Never asked you to shut up. Hard to say where that little bit of paranoia came from. Just looking for clarification and a little bit of intellectual honesty. I am all for good debate but draw the line when outright mistruths are hurled out because you don't like someone or something. Ad hominem attacks are your bread-n-butter.

Actually, that's exactly what I meant, the tag is used as a fundraiser, you know, to profit from. Sure they are making a profit, do they not have paid staff? Where does that money come from for that? Thin air?

You can play the victim all you want regarding your "clarification" but this isn't the first time a clown like you has tried that bullchit. I don't play that game, so you're going to have to try something other than that.

You don't want a debate, you just don't like it that not everyone agrees with you that these auction tags aren't working for their intended purpose of putting more sheep on the mountain in Montana, which they most obviously are not.

Facts sting...I get it.

 

[BuzzH]

Not at all. Takes more than just $'s to get good conservation results. I have no idea whether Montana manages those dollars wisely or not. No amount of auction dollars are going to control the weather. And if domestic sheep grazing is a contributing factor in disease in the bighorn population, then it is going to take far more dollars than can be raised from a sheep tag auction to affect that issue. So what's your point?

Never made the claim that the auction tag helps everyone. I did state that if more dollars leads to more sheep on the landscape, that is a good thing. I take it you disagree that a larger sheep population has the potential to result in more tags being made available to all (sheep) hunters. Suggest you work on your reading comprehension.

Again, you need to work on your reading comprehension. Auctions are just another way of generating funding just like raffles, direct appeals for donations, etc. outside of direct government expenditures. And arguably the most efficient in terms of generating the most $/tag. Funding (nominally/hopefully) supports conservation efforts. Are you arguing that funding for conservation has no impact on sheep populations? How do you know that funding to date hasn't at least kept the population from going to zero in Montana? So to take your logic to its natural conclusion - since no amount of fundraising for sheep conservation (auction, raffles, etc.) over the last 40 years has resulted in more tags, it is a complete waste of time and effort and Montana should just throw in the towel.

Your argument for auction tags was that more sheep were being put on the mountain. That's just not true. Not to mention that almost all, if not all, of the sheep herds in Montana were put on the mountain long before an auction tag existed. That's a simple fact.

A larger sheep population would increase tags, but the one with the comprehension problem seems to be you. There are LESS sheep in Montana now, LESS tags issued now, than before the auction tags existed. That's a simple fact. If they're working so well, why is that the case?

That tired line of "well, if it weren't for the money from auction tags it would be worse" is lame. I don't see how that could be the case, we throw a boatload of money at the issue with less results all the time in Montana.

I would suggest that if all great auction tag money is not netting the desired result, the tag may as well be raffled so that everyone has a chance at it. If there were better results from the tag, I might feel differently, but I base my decisions on these things with results. In the case of Montana, the money being spent is not equaling better results, period, end of statement.

Its also not true that auctions always generate more funding either, WYBHA had a commission tag that raised the most money ever for a commission tag, $57K and the guy that won it bought 3 tickets. We also donated every penny to a perpetual easement on Raymond Mountain in Western Wyoming.

I also believe that auction tags piss all over the North American Model where wildlife is supposed to be accessible/available to ALL, not just those with the fattest wallet.

 

[Alpine01]

Sure they are making a profit, do they not have paid staff? Where does that money come from for that? Thin air?

Ok - produce a financial earnings statement from WSF that shows they generated a profit based on revenue and expenses for any fiscal year you wish and I will offer a mea culpa. I'm sure the IRS will want to see that data as well.

You don't want a debate, you just don't like it that not everyone agrees with you that these auction tags aren't working for their intended purpose of putting more sheep on the mountain in Montana, which they most obviously are not.

So far it's only you who seems to have an issue. I have zero problems if others disagree with me. I welcome any other's comments so long as they don't misrepresent my position which you do regularly. And if your observations are correct that no amount of funding generated through auctions (and thus by raffles or any other non-direct state funding mechanism) hasn't improved the sheep populations in Montana, then it would seem that $'s aren't the limiting factor. So whether it is an auction or a raffle is irrelevant unless your only concern is who gets to kill the last one. 40 years of doing the same thing with negative gains seems like a good reason to look at other solutions if your focus is to increase sheep populations.

 

[BuzzH]

Ok - produce a financial earnings statement from WSF that shows they generated a profit based on revenue and expenses for any fiscal year you wish and I will offer a mea culpa. I'm sure the IRS will want to see that data as well.

So far it's only you who seems to have an issue. I have zero problems if others disagree with me. I welcome any other's comments so long as they don't misrepresent my position which you do regularly. And if your observations are correct that no amount of funding generated through auctions (and thus by raffles or any other non-direct state funding mechanism) hasn't improved the sheep populations in Montana, then it would seem that $'s aren't the limiting factor. So whether it is an auction or a raffle is irrelevant unless your only concern is who gets to kill the last one. 40 years of doing the same thing with negative gains seems like a good reason to look at other solutions if your focus is to increase sheep populations.

Fine with me, do away with both auction and raffle tags...that would be the best move, put the tags back into the general draw. We did much better without either. That still doesn't change the fact that GG was influenced by those that profit from these tags when he veto'd the bill in question. I would also argue, more than just me had an issue with the auction tags if a majority of Montana's voting population and legislature passed the bill, wouldn't you agree?

As per usual, you miss the point...but that's to be expected. If we must have a Governors tag, I would much rather it be raffled than auctioned for a lot of very good reasons. Reasons that seem to escape you, but again, that's to be expected. I'm hopeful a different administration will get another crack at actually doing what the citizens of Montana want. I think AZ did the right thing going from auction to raffle tags. I also think they do a good job of not creating many of those ridiculous tags to start with.

It's quite clear that money isn't solving the problem with Montana's sheep decline.

 

[Alpine01]

That still doesn't change my opinion that GG was influenced by those that benefit from these tags when he veto'd the bill in question.

There, fixed that for you.

 

[BuzzH]

There, fixed that for you.

Semantics...but, good for you!