GG vetos Sheep and Moose Lottery Option

[SAJ-99]

They did, but that’s not a real comparison. A montana mule deer is worth $25 raffle ticket. Due to the way deer are managed and the poor quality of deer hunting in the state, an auction wouldn’t raise much. States with good deer hunting raise hundreds of thousands of dollars off of their statewide auctions. More than they do with their sheep tags in many cases.

nonody is chomping at the bit to hunt Montana deer.

Then keep selling them to Princes, Kings, and CEOs, I guess. As long as the money goes to sheep, no problem. Unfortunately, it seems from the news flow, MT sheep aren't in much better shape than the MD.

 

[BuzzH]

Its laughable that the veto was about helping the resource. It's about making sure these types of tags stay with who the good Governor feels is the rightful owner of such opportunities, those types that contribute to his campaign and the sort. Secondly, if you really want to figure out another reason for the veto, just look into who makes a profit from the auction.

Not difficult to read sign...

 

[MTGomer]

MT sheep aren't in much better shape than the MD.

i wouldn’t argue that they’re in any better shape.

 

[cgasner1]

Then keep selling them to Princes, Kings, and CEOs, I guess. As long as the money goes to sheep, no problem. Unfortunately, it seems from the news flow, MT sheep aren't in much better shape than the MD.

Either way a ram is gonna die if the money raised can help put more on the landscape that’s the point personally could care less who pulls the trigger life isn’t fair

 

[Forkyfinder]

Its laughable that the veto was about helping the resource. It's about making sure these types of tags stay with who the good Governor feels is the rightful owner of such opportunities, those types that contribute to his campaign and the sort. Secondly, if you really want to figure out another reason for the veto, just look into who makes a profit from the auction.

Not difficult to read sign...

Go on....

 

[Forkyfinder]

Either way a ram is gonna die if the money raised can help put more on the landscape that’s the point personally could care less who pulls the trigger life isn’t fair

Absolutely. And granting the opportunity to choose either option at the behest of the commission grants the best chance of doing that.

Pretty easy to argue - if a single raffle failed bad compared to an auction, the responsible choice is pretty clear.

At the same time - id ask where the money raised argument for the resource ends? What if RMEF auctioned off every single 380 tag for a year? Thatd raise a lot of money, should we do that?

 

[The_Yuki_Yama]

It has long troubled me that any tags were sold at auction. It runs counter to the premise that wildlife belongs equally to the public. Rationalizing it as a crucial fundraiser, is window dressing. It is purely selling a tag to someone not content to swim with the unwashed masses.

The lottery is a better option, both ethically and as a fundraiser. A person of means can purchase many lottery tickets, increasing their odds, but not offering any guarantee. Everyone else can purchase tickets as they want. Even the person buying a single ticket has a small chance of winning the tag.

Do you have the same problem with tags costing money at all? There are a lot of draw tags that cost >$1000. When you include required hunting licenses that are often >$100, points which can be another >$100 for a handful of species, and then multiply that by 10 states, there are a lot of guys myself included spending close to $10k a year.. It doesn't bother me to much as it is well worth the price to me, and the money is going to at least somewhat support causes I support. Should all these costs be done away with because some people can't afford it? I'm having some trouble distinguishing why a few auction tags that raise a ton of money (that most people wouldn't get anyway) get way more attention than more common tags where application and tag costs are still prohibitive to a lot of people. Selfishly I wish prices were even higher so I would have less people to compete with, but realistically this seems like a greater barrier to entry than a few auction tags.

 

[406dn]

Do you have the same problem with tags costing money at all? There are a lot of draw tags that cost >$1000. When you include required hunting licenses that are often >$100, points which can be another >$100 for a handful of species, and then multiply that by 10 states, there are a lot of guys myself included spending close to $10k a year.. It doesn't bother me to much as it is well worth the price to me, and the money is going to at least somewhat support causes I support. Should all these costs be done away with because some people can't afford it? I'm having some trouble distinguishing why a few auction tags that raise a ton of money (that most people wouldn't get anyway) get way more attention than more common tags where application and tag costs are still prohibitive to a lot of people. Selfishly I wish prices were even higher so I would have less people to compete with, but realistically this seems like a greater barrier to entry than a few auction tags.

Sadly, life can't, won't ever be entirely fair in every regard, in every instance. Big game hunting is not an inexpensive endeavor. Even if tags were free, many who might like to hunt, can't swing all of the other costs.

Most of the western states make resident deer and elk tags within financial reach of most residents. The tags for sheep, moose and goat are higher, but still pretty affordable. These tags come with possible extra expense some can't swing. Getting your once in a lifetime ram mounted by a taxidermist is going to be quite a bit more than the tag.

The demand for non resident hunting far exceeds the supply. High tag prices is one way to diminish demand for the tags. Personally speaking, non resident tags should not be beyond the reach of all but the wealthiest non residents. For good or bad, most western states have chosen to gather a large chunk of their operating revenue from non resident hunters. It is an easy sell to resident hunters. It would not bother me to pick up a bigger portion of the tab. I don't see it happening.

One result of non resident hunters paying so much for their tags is they get more consideration than if they payed considerably less. There are more than a few residents in every state that think the cause of their fish and game problems can be laid at the feet of non residents.

 

[The_Yuki_Yama]

We should auction all of them off maybe. Imagine the money raised….

I actually do kind of wonder if all tags went to an auction, what would the price get down to? like a white tail deer in Iowa. How would it compare to current tag prices? Would it actually be more than that $630 a non resident has to currently spend?

 

[cgasner1]

Absolutely. And granting the opportunity to choose either option at the behest of the commission grants the best chance of doing that.

Pretty easy to argue - if a single raffle failed bad compared to an auction, the responsible choice is pretty clear.

At the same time - id ask where the money raised argument for the resource ends? What if RMEF auctioned off every single 380 tag for a year? Thatd raise a lot of money, should we do that?

Our sheep are in a bad way and need any extra help they can get. It’s not their fault that someone put a hobby farm up and it’s killing them off. It is your fault that you don’t make enough money to buy the tag. Sorry if I’m gonna put more stalk in what the guy putting in guzzlers has to say about it. Which he also agreed to just get as much as possible. Like I said life’s not fair I’m pro sheep and want the best for them whichever way that lands

 

[The_Yuki_Yama]

One result of non resident hunters paying so much for their tags is they get more consideration than if they payed considerably less. There are more than a few residents in every state that think the cause of their fish and game problems can be laid at the feet of non residents.

Was talking to a guy the other day that said that nonresident archery hunters in the state I grew up in was the reason for low deer numbers. Showed him that nonresident archery was only 2% of doe harvest and 4% of buck harvest. He still couldn't be convinced lol.

I agree with you on the pricing discussion. And auctions do feel pretty gross to me. However on these tags where the odds of drawing are only like 1 in 30,000 or so anyway, I don't have as much of a problem with it to go after the money as anyone's change of drawing it are so dang low.

 

[Nameless Range]

As of this morning, there have been 34,872 sheep supertags purchased through FWP. At $5 a pop, that's about 175K. The deadline for MT's supertag lottery is not until June 30th. Last year, MT's Sheep License went at the auction in Reno for $380,000. BHA sold the mule deer raffle tickets at 25 a piece. If some conservation org sold raffle tickets at $10 or $15 a piece for a Bighorn, as opposed to an auction and marketed the effort well, I'd wager it's very possible they'd raise as much or more than the auction last year.

Too bad the commission is prohibited from even considering it, and for Montanans getting to know.

 

[The_Yuki_Yama]

As of this morning, there have been 34,872 sheep supertags purchased through FWP. At $5 a pop, that's about 175K. The deadline for MT's supertag lottery is not until June 30th. Last year, MT's Sheep License went at the auction in Reno for $380,000. BHA sold the mule deer raffle tickets at 25 a piece. If some conservation org sold raffle tickets at $10 or $15 a piece for a Bighorn, as opposed to an auction and marketed the effort well, I'd wager it's very possible they'd raise as much or more than the auction last year.

Too bad the commission is prohibited from even considering it, and for Montanans getting to know.

I don't really follow this issue. How would this proposed raffle differ from the super tag? Seems like the higher price would just result in fewer raffle tickets sold.
Also seems like doing more of these raffles would be extremely susceptible to product cannibalization, therefore reducing the total proceeds.

 

[Nameless Range]

I don't really follow this issue. How would this proposed raffle differ from the super tag? Seems like the higher price would just result in fewer raffle tickets sold.
Also seems like doing more of these raffles would be extremely susceptible to product cannibalization, therefore reducing the total proceeds.

Maybe. I'd be interested to find out, and if it were the case, that would be strong evidence in favor of auction tags. That said, people get behind the efforts of conservation orgs they are passionate about and word gets out better through the reach of those orgs - particularly national ones - than it does through FWP's website. I can't find the supertag stats from previous years, but this concern, which I did hear a year ago, didn't seem to come to fruition when BHA raffled off the mule deer license last year.

Though I'd prefer an approach of appropriately funding conservation and actually dealing with root issues at the Trustee level, I don't feel particularly strong as an advocate either way regarding auction vs raffle, but I think it is a damn bad look that conservation orgs seem to be lobbying against the commission from even being able to consider it. It's protectionism vacuous of argument.

 

[brymoore]

When is the elephant in the room going to be discussed? All the money raised from sheep tag auctions for conservation has not increased wild sheep numbers long-term. The only benefit from the auctions is for the wealthy to be able to buy sheep tags.

 

[Forkyfinder]

When is the elephant in the room going to be discussed? All the money raised from sheep tag auctions for conservation has not increased wild sheep numbers long-term. The only benefit from the auctions is for the wealthy to be able to buy sheep tags.

I feel your sentiment, but did you read @MTGomer 's earlier comments?

 

[PRO MO]

When is the elephant in the room going to be discussed? All the money raised from sheep tag auctions for conservation has not increased wild sheep numbers long-term. The only benefit from the auctions is for the wealthy to be able to buy sheep tags.

Because there is no elephant to discuss. you think there's 5000 sheep in montana up from the low of 1000 without the help of this type of funding? its not a great outlook, but they are doing what they can, and if an auction tag is the way to maximize the funding, then i'm all for it. And if you think a raffle would out-fund an auction on sheep, you are just plain wrong. proof?
In the last 20ish years, Arizona auctions and raffles the same amount of have generated $7 million compared to $3 million from raffles. And there's typically been one auction tag, and and 1 or 2 raffle tags. double the money, half the tags...

 

[brymoore]

Because there is no elephant to discuss. you think there's 5000 sheep in montana up from the low of 1000 without the help of this type of funding? its not a great outlook, but they are doing what they can, and if an auction tag is the way to maximize the funding, then i'm all for it. And if you think a raffle would out-fund an auction on sheep, you are just plain wrong. proof?
In the last 20ish years, Arizona auctions and raffles the same amount of have generated $7 million compared to $3 million from raffles. And there's typically been one auction tag, and and 1 or 2 raffle tags. double the money, half the tags...

The funding had nothing to do with the rise in sheep numbers from 1k to 5k. It occured before the auction funds.

 

[406dn]

i tried to look up the population trend. The data has some gaps. It looks to me that the population has been more or less the same for over thirty years. I guess they could argue, but for all of this money raised, populations would have declined.

I doubt that is the case.

Sadly, it is hard to find new suitable areas to establish herds.

 

[shootnthebull]

Ty Stubblefield here. Since I am called out on the matter of the Montana bighorn auction tag. For those who don't know me I feel it's important that I give some brief history on my background. I have 25+ years in non-profit hunting and wildlife conservation as a volunteer and as a profession. In that 25 years I have orchestrated and been involved with 100's of banquet fundraisers and personally organized and helped auction and raffle more than 30 hunting auction tags for non-profit hunting organizations. I only say this to lend credibility to my point of view. I don't have all the answers and will never claim to.

I will start by saying I do not care where the money comes from. Raffle or Auction. But I do care that we maximize our fundraising potential for a finite resource. This is not about us as individual hunters, it is about bighorn sheep. Social justice should not override funding for wildlife management.

The "fairness" argument has no foundation in my mind. If you want to hunt bighorn sheep you can. Montana is the only state in the lower 48 where you can simply buy a tag and go sheep hunting. Tell me that's not fair with a straight face. And a raffle for bighorn sheep already exists. The cost of a ticket is ridiculously cheap. Embarrassingly cheap. The odds of winning that tag, 1 in 49,784. The hardest tag in the state to draw, HD 680 is 1 in 5895. You're better off in the draw than you are in a raffle.

But let's get down to brass tax and talk about what's fair for the sheep.

Over the past ten years the auction tag has raised $3,019,500. During that same time period the raffle or "lottery" tag has raised $1,681,450. The auction tag raised $1,338,050 more than the raffle tag over the last decade. Those are real numbers. Not hypothetical.

We can run the hypothetical numbers on a raffle all day long but I'm here to tell you raffles are hard. They require time, money and resources to execute properly and effectively. Time, money and resources that won't go on the ground for bighorn conservation. As the price of the ticket goes up the the desire of the consumer goes down. $50 and $100 tickets are hard to sell. You can sell high priced tickets if the odds are good, meaning a small number of chance. Or you can sell lots of chances for cheap because, well it's cheap. But that middle ground is not easy, it's a hard sell. And while comparing that super tag. It's not only cheap but FWP has a captive audience of nearly 300,000 hunters to advertise to. For a non-profit to market the tag they are 100% on their own. An international organization like Wild Sheep Foundation might have a database of 25,000. Sounds like a lot but it's not.

Do with that information what you will but to say we don't care about the average hunter or raising the most money for the resource can't be further from the truth.

I will reiterate the point that Montana Wild Sheep Foundation doesn't auction this tag and we do not get to decide where or how the money is spent. But I can say that bighorn sheep in Montana rely heavily on this method of funding. It is the sole reason FWP, MSU, Montana Woolgrowers and Montana Wild Sheep Foundation were able to partner on the statewide commingling study. A study costing $8,000,000 and running over the course of five years.

Thanks for reading, I'm getting back to work now.