I guess maybe the thing to do is approach this at the 10K foot view and start at the start regarding Governors tags.
First of all, I think its important that transparency must be paramount to what's going on and facts need to presented on both sides of the argument. Also, with dwindling resources, in particular for sheep, moose, goat, mule deer, etc. things like Governors tags not only need to be revisited from time to time, but SHOULD be. We don't live in a vacuum, things change over time.
The pro-argument that we all hear is the money raised goes to fund additional projects. Totally agree, there is benefit to that no doubt. Providing though, that agreements made in regard to how the money is spent are kept, by all involved. The other thing the public is entitled to know, is how is that money working for things that are benefiting wildlife and what are the results? Is throwing money at these projects resulting in more opportunity for hunters, better understanding of problems, improving access for hunters, and all the other things that Sportsmen have paid for since day one.
Here are some of the potential pit-falls that are, indeed happening with Governors, Commission and various other set asides:
1. They are most assuredly, no question at all, in conflict with the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation. The NAM is recognized around the world as the best model under which to manage wildlife. Frankly, we are the envy of the world in that regard. One of the Sisters of that model is that the citizens of each state have equal access to that wildlife. When we allow one group of hunters to have more, better, or improved access to that wildlife at the expense of others, that is a dereliction of the NAM.
2. In several instances, these tags are having to be managed around because of the impact they have to the wildlife. The average hunting public is losing opportunities because of them, not only through the direct loss of tags going to the highest bidder, but also through management decisions. Case in point is one of the best sheep units in Wyoming. There is more opportunity in that unit for sheep tags to be increased from the current quota of 8 to perhaps 10-12 tags. The problem is, if the quota is raised to 10, there will be not 2 more sheep hunters hunting there, but very likely 9 more. The 5 governors tags, plus the raffle ram and also the tri-fecta raffle winner. Another example is the Snowy Range moose area. I had to get pretty aggressive at a local meeting here when the guys that outfit unit 38 made a proposal to reduce the current quota on bull tags issued through the draw. The reason was not biological, but the fact that their Governors tag holders weren't killing as big of bulls. I was able to address that and slam the brakes on that crap. But again, the influence of Governors tags was about to impact how that resource was allocated and managed. Bad deal. Another example is the elk units around Cody, where DIY NR and R opportunity through the draw has gigantically reduced the number of tags issued through the draw. To the point that in some of those areas, there are more commission/governors tag holders hunting there than sportsmen that are issued tags through the draw. It also creates a huge decline in hunt quality, when the average guy is forced to compete with these guys that pay big money for a tag and a guided hunt. Another example of the impacts, was just last week when I attended the GF meeting in Baggs. The area biologist made a recommendation to open a late mule deer season with 25 available tags to allow additional opportunity in unit 82. The season was strongly opposed and not because of the 25 tags that would be issued through the draw. That hunt was stopped via a petition several years ago, because 17-20 additional deer were being killed by commission and governors tag holders. There is no appetite from the locals to even consider that hunt until something is done about the impacts of the G/C tags.
3. The influence of the money that these tags set is obvious and its been presented here in this thread. It sets a bad precedence that even the wildlife NGO's fall into...that is the monetary value. Nobody is questioning the sincerity and good work that all these NGO's do, they do phenomenal work and mountains of good for wildlife, no debate. But, the question that needs to be asked, is the money involved clouding the vision of who this wildlife is held in trust for, and who got the wildlife to the point it is now? Is the North American Model important...or is it just a punch-line when money is involved? I think those are fair questions to ask and again we're straying down the path of commercialization of wildlife and taking opportunity away from the Sportsmen of average means.
4. One of the biggest threats facing hunting and conservation in general is the lack of recruitment into the sport. Are these set aside tags disenfranchising youth? Its pretty sad when I look at my 2 nephews, or a room full of kids taking hunters safety, and realize that they likely will never get a chance to hunt moose or sheep. I've made it perfectly clear to my nephews, that if they want to hunt sheep, moose, or the best elk, deer, etc. they best get an education and find a job that pays obscene amounts of money. Trying to get there the way I have, applying for 38 years and drawing ONE sheep tag are over. They're staring the stark reality in the face that they never will draw...they're DECADES behind in the point game. The question is, would we rather see over the next 20 years, 100 Sportsmen of average means draw those moose and sheep tags...our kids, our neighbors, our friends...or do we continue to grant special privileges to the guys with the fat wallets?
Lets not forget, that this is not an NGO's wildlife, its not the Governors, its not the WCF's, its not the Commission's...its held in trust for the Citizens of Wyoming...period.
Not only should it come as no shock to anyone, that when you develop your business model around an asset that is held in trust for ALL citizens of the State, it should be expected that the Citizens are going to ask hard questions about THEIR ASSETS and how they are allocated.
If the Citizens get a belly full of their assets being given away to the highest bidder and they demand change, that's not only appropriate, but their right to do so.
...carry on.
