Eastern elk auction

[ShaneTyTrey]

If they had more of these tags, that would be problematic, but 1 tag per species to help raise funds that otherwise wouldn't get spent, I feel is a win for conservation if the money is used correctly.

The 'funds for conservation' argument doesn't hold water.  It is a charade to allow for some deviation from the NAMWC.  It is just not logical to suggest auction tags amount to anything remotely meaningful when it comes to wildlife conservation and management.

How is it not logical.  It provides additional funding that can be spent to support conservation.  I am not saying in WA, it is used how it should be, but the funds are there and if used correctly, provide a great opportunity for conservation, I don't think that in anything other than logical.  If you argue that, you just don't like the tags, and that is your choice, but I am don't intend to argue my point any further.

[pianoman9701]

I don't feel that this opposes the NAMWC. I think it supports it with money that'll be used by F&W for whatever purpose (other than raises for the Commission). I would prefer that the money specifically go for elk habitat restoration, etc.

We all have the chance to score a big bull. The record books don't only contain a list of rich people. And, we all have the opportunity to become rich and buy expensive tags. Adding this tag to the annual draw would only result in the loss of $200K in conservation funds. I wish the hunter best of luck in filling that tag with the bull of a lifetime. And I hope we can all concentrate more on the real threats to our hunting heritage.

[Tbar]

I don't feel that this opposes the NAMWC. I think it supports it with money that'll be used by F&W for whatever purpose (other than raises for the Commission). I would prefer that the money specifically go for elk habitat restoration, etc.

We all have the chance to score a big bull. The record books don't only contain a list of rich people. And, we all have the opportunity to become rich and buy expensive tags. Adding this tag to the annual draw would only result in the loss of $200K in conservation funds. I wish the hunter best of luck in filling that tag with the bull of a lifetime. And I hope we can all concentrate more on the real threats to our hunting heritage.

[/b]

These tags are a deviation and an absolute threat to the future of hunting,  specifically to the rank and file hunter.

[pianoman9701]

I don't feel that this opposes the NAMWC. I think it supports it with money that'll be used by F&W for whatever purpose (other than raises for the Commission). I would prefer that the money specifically go for elk habitat restoration, etc.

We all have the chance to score a big bull. The record books don't only contain a list of rich people. And, we all have the opportunity to become rich and buy expensive tags. Adding this tag to the annual draw would only result in the loss of $200K in conservation funds. I wish the hunter best of luck in filling that tag with the bull of a lifetime. And I hope we can all concentrate more on the real threats to our hunting heritage.

[/b]

These tags are a deviation and an absolute threat to the future of hunting,  specifically to the rank and file hunter.

I'm a rank and file hunter and I respectfully disagree, TBar. The threats to our hunting are far more pressing than the auction of a single elk tag. And, they include a radical left influence on our Wildlife Commission which is daily limiting our opportunity, statewide and in every aspect of our hunting.

[time2hunt]

I don't feel that this opposes the NAMWC. I think it supports it with money that'll be used by F&W for whatever purpose (other than raises for the Commission). I would prefer that the money specifically go for elk habitat restoration, etc.

We all have the chance to score a big bull. The record books don't only contain a list of rich people. And, we all have the opportunity to become rich and buy expensive tags. Adding this tag to the annual draw would only result in the loss of $200K in conservation funds. I wish the hunter best of luck in filling that tag with the bull of a lifetime. And I hope we can all concentrate more on the real threats to our hunting heritage.

[/b]

These tags are a deviation and an absolute threat to the future of hunting,  specifically to the rank and file hunter.

Once again Tbar there are more 400 inch bulls shoot by tribal members then one Governor or raffle tag holder Is that not devastating the herds?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Tbar]

I don't feel that this opposes the NAMWC. I think it supports it with money that'll be used by F&W for whatever purpose (other than raises for the Commission). I would prefer that the money specifically go for elk habitat restoration, etc.

We all have the chance to score a big bull. The record books don't only contain a list of rich people. And, we all have the opportunity to become rich and buy expensive tags. Adding this tag to the annual draw would only result in the loss of $200K in conservation funds. I wish the hunter best of luck in filling that tag with the bull of a lifetime. And I hope we can all concentrate more on the real threats to our hunting heritage.

[/b]

These tags are a deviation and an absolute threat to the future of hunting,  specifically to the rank and file hunter.

Once again Tbar there are more 400 inch bulls shoot by tribal members then one Governor or raffle tag holder Is that not devastating the herds?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't disagree at all.  It's a deviation of the namwc and conflicts several of the pillars.  The threat is not in devastating herds but the future of hunting. 

[idahohuntr]

If they had more of these tags, that would be problematic, but 1 tag per species to help raise funds that otherwise wouldn't get spent, I feel is a win for conservation if the money is used correctly.

The 'funds for conservation' argument doesn't hold water.  It is a charade to allow for some deviation from the NAMWC.  It is just not logical to suggest auction tags amount to anything remotely meaningful when it comes to wildlife conservation and management.

How is it not logical.  It provides additional funding that can be spent to support conservation.  I am not saying in WA, it is used how it should be, but the funds are there and if used correctly, provide a great opportunity for conservation, I don't think that in anything other than logical.  If you argue that, you just don't like the tags, and that is your choice, but I am don't intend to argue my point any further.

Its not logical because it doesn't move the needle one bit.  The WDFW has a $1 billion+ biennium capital and operating budget. The auction revenue isn't even a drop in the bucket. Yet, the deviation from NAMWC and the management strategies required to support interest/revenue from auction tags requires a disproportionate sacrifice from the average hunter. Bottom line - I'm not willing to look the other way on the most basic premise of wildlife management and the public trust doctrine for fractions of decimals in the overall budget allocated to conservation/wildlife management.

And I want to be crystal clear: I have no ill-will towards any auction tag buyer/participant.  They are playing by the rules and I'm sure most are wonderful people.  Its the rules/laws allowing auction tags that I despise.

[Rainier10]

Auction revenue the past two years 2022 was $572,250 and 2023 was $609,500.

I’m guessing 2024 will be higher than 2023.

I think the WDFW budget is $1.02 billion dollars for two years so $500 million a year.  I think more than half of it goes to marine projects like salmon restoration. So let’s say $220 million goes to big game, that means $600,000 from auction tags is adding 0.27% to the big game budget if I’m doing my math correct.

[ShaneTyTrey]

Auction revenue the past two years 2022 was $572,250 and 2023 was $609,500.

I’m guessing 2024 will be higher than 2023.

I think the WDFW budget is $1.02 billion dollars for two years so $500 million a year.  I think more than half of it goes to marine projects like salmon restoration. So let’s say $220 million goes to big game, that means $600,000 from auction tags is adding 0.27% to the big game budget if I’m doing my math correct.

A lot of that is salaries too, that are a fixed cost.  It would be interesting to see what is what a family would consider as disposable revenue, I have a feeling the auction proceeds are a decent portion of that, if it was pooled for several years, land could be bought and turned into a trust and kept public forever.  If managed correctly this money does can make a significant difference.

[idahohuntr]

So - if the need is $6-700k in additional revenue to do good things for wildlife - is auctioning a bunch of tags the only option?  Of course not.  I'm all for properly resourcing conservation and wildlife management...but I'm not supportive of violating principles of the NAMWC and engaging in actions that threaten the future of hunting to get that extra $700k.  The publicity of even a small number of these tags can significantly influence public perception and support for hunting.  Just not worth it...especially in states where ballot box biology is alive and well.   

[ShaneTyTrey]

So - if the need is $6-700k in additional revenue to do good things for wildlife - is auctioning a bunch of tags the only option?  Of course not.  I'm all for properly resourcing conservation and wildlife management...but I'm not supportive of violating principles of the NAMWC and engaging in actions that threaten the future of hunting to get that extra $700k.  The publicity of even a small number of these tags can significantly influence public perception and support for hunting.  Just not worth it...especially in states where ballot box biology is alive and well.

How specifically is it violating the NAMWC?  I understand your argument that it can be viewed poorly, but in our world today, pick any topic and a portion of people will view positive and a portion negative, so we can't control that.  I support these auction tags, but if you are saying this is against NAMWC please show me, convince me, and turn my opinion.

[dvolmer]

These tags are a deviation and an absolute threat to the future of hunting,  specifically to the rank and file hunter.
[/quote]

Well said. I totally agree!

[idahohuntr]

So - if the need is $6-700k in additional revenue to do good things for wildlife - is auctioning a bunch of tags the only option?  Of course not.  I'm all for properly resourcing conservation and wildlife management...but I'm not supportive of violating principles of the NAMWC and engaging in actions that threaten the future of hunting to get that extra $700k.  The publicity of even a small number of these tags can significantly influence public perception and support for hunting.  Just not worth it...especially in states where ballot box biology is alive and well.

How specifically is it violating the NAMWC?  I understand your argument that it can be viewed poorly, but in our world today, pick any topic and a portion of people will view positive and a portion negative, so we can't control that.  I support these auction tags, but if you are saying this is against NAMWC please show me, convince me, and turn my opinion.

It violates the NAMWC in that it offers wildlife to the highest bidder, reserving for them a greater opportunity/access to public wildlife (a contradiction to at least 2 of the 7 principles).  Auction tags are much more akin to the European system we so correctly deviated from...where it was the "Kings" game...not for the peasants. 

The logical counter-argument is - well its just a small number of tags and it raises a lot of money to help the publics wildlife.  Which is where I've been arguing that I don't think the money is hard to replace and I don't think it moves the needle in helping the public wildlife...so why dip our toe into the Euro system of reserving the best game for "kings"?

I'm not trying to convince you to change your opinion of auction tags - you are absolutely entitled to your view and many good folks hold a different opinion than mine.

[ShaneTyTrey]

You guys all support the raffle tags, but they don't work as well.

In 2023 here is what was raised in raffle tag proceeds.
Sheep 6,296 tickets @ $11.50/each = $72,404
Blacktail 1,4898 tickets @ $6/each = $8,988
Mule Deer 4,569 tickets @ $6/each =$27,414
White Tail 1,905 tickets @ $6/each = $11,430
Eastside Elk 11,301 tickets @ $6/each =$67,806
Westside Elk $2,481 tickets @ $6/each = $14,886
Moose with (2) tags 8,011 tickets @ $6/each = $48,066 or $24,033/each
Mountain Goat 4,524 tickets @ $6/each = $27,144
Three Deer 1,657 tickets @ $17each = $28,169

That is a total of $306,307

The auction proceeds for those same animals were:
Sheep  = $256,500
Blacktail  = $7,500
Mule Deer = $42,500
White Tail  = $7,500
Eastside Elk  = $132,000
Westside Elk = $50,000
Moose with (1) tag  = $50,000
Mountain Goat = $26,000
Three Deer = $37,500

That is a total of $609,500

These tags do the exact same thing, but the raffle brings in 1/2 the money.  You also had one less Moose tag that would have brought close to another $50,000 given it was bid up that high.  Only difference is everyone has a fraction of an opportunity.  How are these any different for the NAMWC.

[NOCK NOCK]

So - if the need is $6-700k in additional revenue to do good things for wildlife (wildlife is also cats/griz/wolves)- is auctioning a bunch of tags the only option?  Of course not.  I'm all for properly resourcing conservation and wildlife management...but I'm not supportive of violating principles of the NAMWC and engaging in actions that threaten the future of hunting to get that extra $700k.  The publicity of even a small number of these tags (think Bullwinkle) can significantly influence public perception and support for hunting.  Just not worth it...especially in states where ballot box biology is alive and well.

THIS,  with a couple of emphasis 




Shane, that is showing current results,........What if....... raffle permits were capped at say 5/10?  I know I would buy more than my current 2-3 of the ones I buy. I would bet a large sum of money that capping the raffle would increase sales (knowing that a persons 1-5 tickets are not competing with the dude that spend $5k+