Sheep Hunting covered in New York Times (Positive article for hunters)

Rodger that.
Good thing we have hundreds of thousands of conservation minded hunters willing to pay so a few guys can brag in news articles about how they put sheep on the mountain.
 
Vance Corrigan was referring to sheep hunting around the world. Marco polo, argalli, Stone's sheep, all are very expensive to hunt. There are a lot average Joe's that are members of WSF. The Less than 1 club is a great new idea to get young hunters involved in conservation.
 
BigHornRam said:
The Less than 1 club is a great new idea to get young hunters involved in conservation.
Click to expand...

It be really neat to be one of those young guys that may not be able to afford an awesome hunt up north until they were old enough that their body wasn't capable of making the most of the experience, and then winning a $30k hunt plus whatever else comes with it, at the luck of the draw.
Bet he or she would feel like they won the lottery.
 
MTGomer said:
It be really neat to be one of those young guys that may not be able to afford an awesome hunt up north until they were old enough that their body wasn't capable of making the most of the experience, and then winning a $30k hunt plus whatever else comes with it, at the luck of the draw.
Bet he or she would feel like they won the lottery.
Click to expand...

Sure would! Burns and Stone Glacier are donating an Alaska hunt for life members at the MT WSF banquet. Damn rich guys!
 
BuzzH said:
The sheep program costs to the WYGF in 2015 was $2,448,326. Revenue generated via PR, license fees, general fund, federal/state grants for sheep was $1,673,227.

In other words, the sheep program does NOT pay for itself. Even assuming an average price of 50K for the 5 Governors sheep tags, we're talking $250,000. The problem is though, that the GF does NOT directly receive that Governors tag sheep money. They apply for grants through WWTF, and do receive some of it, but not all of it. Its true that 70% of the money that is raised through the sale goes to sheep related conservation projects in Wyoming. True that it relieves some of the strain on the sheep management budget, but not 250K worth actually hits the ground, more like 175K.

That still leaves a total revenue loss to the Department, even applying 175K in Governors tags, to the tune of about $430,000. Meaning that the sheep program doesn't even come close to paying for itself.

It also means that the "average sportsmen" in Wyoming are providing nearly 2.5 million to sheep management, while the governors tags are providing 250K...so the contribution provided by the average guys are 10X the amount provided by Richie rich. Yet, the NYT story didn't mention the average sheep applicant/hunter much, if at all. Surely didn't provide any facts in regard to actual numbers.

Not only that, but guys that aren't even buying sheep licenses and/or applying are subsidizing the sheep program to the tune of over 400K.

We're doing this, so that 195 people can hunt sheep.

Contrast that with Wyoming Pronghorn.

Total revenue from pronghorn in 2015 was $10,204,101...total program cost was $4,009,107.

In 2015, 48,452 licenses were issued to pronghorn hunters in Wyoming.

Why, TF, is the NYT running articles about high priced auction sheep tags, when:

1. No mention of how or where the money is being spent from sheep auction tags (I mean HOW and WHERE really, with facts).
2. Average guys are paying 10X more (at least in Wyoming) in support of sheep.
3. Other species are subsidizing the losing sheep program (from a revenue standpoint) in Wyoming.

Which species is providing the most opportunity and the most funding for the GF and ultimately all wildlife?

Seems to me the real wildlife conservation story is getting lost in the curl of a horn and the price of an Auction permit.
Click to expand...

So sheep should just be allowed to perish? All wildlife doesn't directly pay for itself. If that was the measure we would have never paid to bring nearly all of our game species back from the brink of extinction around the turn of the 19th century. Your numbers ignore Pittman Robertson and other funding that goes to all wildlife and habitat. Money on the ground and revenue generated per species cannot be isolated to single species. Anything that benefits one species benefits many species.
 
abqbw said:
So sheep should just be allowed to perish? All wildlife doesn't directly pay for itself. If that was the measure we would have never paid to bring nearly all of our game species back from the brink of extinction around the turn of the 19th century. Your numbers ignore Pittman Robertson and other funding that goes to all wildlife and habitat. Money on the ground and revenue generated per species cannot be isolated to single species. Anything that benefits one species benefits many species.
Click to expand...

No, my numbers don't ignore PR funds...nice try though.

If you're take away from my post was that sheep should be "allowed to perish"...you should probably re-read what I wrote.

The facts are what they are, and I gave fair warning as to what the numbers would show. The NYT article is a joke when looking at the why, how, and who is/was responsible for sheep on the mountain.
 
Buzz,

Your rant ignores PR funding brought in with auction tag revenue. Research it. As for the NYT article, the glitz and glam of an auction and sheep hunts gets more clicks than a dry story about where the funds go towards, like I just posted. NYT is in the business of staying in business of which they are struggling with of late.

Any comments on the research going on at MSU?
 
Hunting Wife said:
I hope you aren't suggesting that all of those students and projects are being funded by WSF funding? That's not how it works.
Click to expand...

No, but considerable portion of Dr Garrott's current budget is being funded with auction tag revenue. I posted the grad student link so people can see the caliber of people Dr. Garrott is training. Make sense?
 
Last edited:
Paul,

I don't need to know what the auction tag revenue is going to...I already know. In case you forgot, or didn't know, I'm a member of the WGBLC and see where every penny of the governors tag money goes.

You don't need to "prove" anything to me, or most others that know what's going on.

Its about what wasn't presented in the article to those that aren't involved that is problematic...I realize that you have a tough time following along with these discussions. Even the ones that aren't that complicated.

If anything made is sound like sheep "would perish", it was that article, making it sound like if not for the rich buying auction tags, sheep would vanish off the face of the earth. That sheep wouldn't be on the landscape. That's just pure BS.

Sheep were doing fine before auction tags, and would do fine without them.
 
Buzz,

Of the revenue generated by the Wyoming auction tags, what is the leveraged PR dollars associated with it? Reread your rant. You didn't include those dollars in it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
Hope for the future
Replies
2
Views
661
PaulRevere
PaulRevere
M
Gold Butte National Monument featured on front page of NYT
Replies
0
Views
631
mfb99
M
Big Fin
More discussion on non-lead ammo - New York Times
3 4 5
Replies
80
Views
8K
BrentD
BrentD
M
Keep your eye on the shiny object - Zinke
Replies
0
Views
619
mfb99
M
M
This American Land
Replies
6
Views
2K
Gerald Martin
Gerald Martin

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
111,140
Messages
1,948,532
Members
35,040
Latest member
gowest23

Share this page

Back
Top