I somewhat agree with Bambistew, that I'm tired of seeing some of the top public tags going out the door for not much in return in regard to commission and governors tags. IN spite of all the money raised sheep continue to tank, mule deer continue to tank, etc.
Yes, they raise a lot of money, yes there are worthy projects that can be done with the money.
But, when you see tag numbers declining with the massive money coming in for say 7 sheep tags in Wyoming, one has to wonder if its worth sacrificing those tags?
I get it that sometimes its tough to "see" the good the tags do or perhaps the good they've done so that things aren't worse, or that we're slowing the decline.
I get it, so I very reluctantly support some raising of funds for specific projects that benefit wildlife via commission and governors tags.
However, here's where I think things get cloudy, and that's when the funds are used for operating costs within an organization. When those tags are used to keep the doors open by NGO's, pay salaries, etc....well, I don't agree with that.
I can tell you for a fact that many NGO's in Wyoming rely on those tags for paying salaries and with no string attached for Commission tags, it happens a lot. In my experience, when that happens, those NGO's hamstring themselves into not representing wildlife, access, etc. of their members, but doing the bidding of those controlling the tags.
In other words, if an NGO rocks the boat in support of public access, wildlife, etc. that a commissioner doesn't agree with, you get no tag. That's BS and at that point the tags become counter-productive to what they are intended for. Classic example is Pete Dube promising BHA a tag (100% of the funds being used on wildlife projects in his commission area), then pulling it last minute, because he and his rancher buddies disagree with our support of 4 hunters from Missouri crossing a corner.
That's dangerous and counterproductive to taking positive positions for the wildlife and the average hunter on issues that may conflict with those giving the commission tags. IMO, I believe 100% of the funds raised should HAVE to be used for a specific project need. Not to pay salaries of NGO's, not to pay administration costs of NGO's, not to shore up a library in Carbon County, not to fund a 4-H program, etc.
Make no mistake these tags have morphed into a quid-pro-quo for those issuing the tags and much has been lost in regard to the argument about how much "good" these tags really do. That's heading down a very murky and dangerous path. A position on an issue should NEVER be compromised by the threat of losing a governors or commission tag to sell. If you're relying on a tag to keep your doors open as an NGO, I'd suggest you're being manipulated and hamstrung from doing your job correctly and unduly influenced by those giving the tag.
Even the WGF Department is being influenced by these tags, and not in a positive way all the time either.
Like I said, I'm a reluctant, very reluctant supporter of these tags, but IMO, there needs to be more over-sight and tougher restrictions on them.
can you really prove that the efforts of the NGOs are responsible for this increase or is it more than likely just coincidence? Just saying, 10% is more or less a natural fluctuation.
