Big Game Funding Proposal Part 1

[scoutdog5]

Funding Concept
Starting in 2010, an income baseline would be established for Mule Deer and Rocky Mountain elk tags. Based on 2007 Resident tag numbers, the income from Resident Mule Deer Tags was approximately 1,700,000, and the income from Resident Rocky Mountain Elk Tags was approximately, 1,700,000. Given the funding shortfalls over the last few years, which are reflected in a lack of enforcement, failure to do annual trend counts on a large no. of units, etc, the proposal is to set the income baselines as follows:
Mule Deer Tag Sales: $ 2,000,000.00
Rocky Mountain Elk Tag Sales: $ 2,000,000.00

Inflation Factor: Income baselines for each species would increase by 5% each year.

Note: This proposal is for Eastern Oregon Mule Deer and Elk only. Although I believe this concept would also be a better solution for funding Westside deer and elk programs, my complete lack of knowledge and experience with these species precludes me from putting together a proposal for them. One option might be to implement this proposal for Mule Deer and Rocky Mountain Elk in 2010, work out the bugs, then come back in 2012 with a Westside plan.

Implementation

This proposal would require legislative approval, which could be obtained in 2009. Given the length of legislative sessions, and uncertainty regarding approval, the proposal would not be implemented until 2010. I believe the legislature would have to approve the basic funding concept, the starting income baselines, and the inflation factor that would be applied to the income baselines each year.
Assuming 2010 implementation, ODF&W would do their normal trend counts in December, 2009 and March 2010, biologists would submit tag recommendations, and the Commission would set RESIDENT tag numbers in early June. At that point, the number of tag approved for residents would be known, and a simple math function (Species Baseline divided by number of Resident tags) would determine the cost of individual tags.
If, for example, 60,000 resident mule deer tags are approved, the cost of a general mule deer tag would be $ 2,000,000 divided by 60,000 tags, or $ 33.33 per tag. In 2011, after applying the 5% inflation factor, and again assuming 60,000 resident mule deer tags, the cost of a tag would be $ 35.00. If 40,000 resident tags are approved, the tag fee would be $50.00 in 2010, and $ 52.50 in 2011.
This is the basic funding mechanism I am proposing. It is designed to provide ODF&W a stable, inflation adjusted source of income to run the Mule Deer and Elk management programs regardless of the number of tags approved. It should also result in tag numbers being set based strictly on biological data, since the income stream to the Department is not affected by tag numbers approved. Comments, questions, criticisms, ideas are all appreciated.
Tomorrow, Premium tags, non-resident tags, youth tags and Archery tags.
Scoutdog

[TheRogue]

Interesting proposal.

First of all......are there other states that do it this way. I, for one, absolutely hate the idea of "reinventing the wheel". There area other states which appear to have well-run game departments with predictable hunting opportunities and results. I'd like to see an analysis of the other state setups first.

My .02

TR

[TheRogue]

And also; what happens when you have a horrible winter kill and the numbers get slashed from one year to the next? Do we really want our tags to cost $50-$75-$100? It's becoming a rich man's sport already.

Just playing the devils advocate here. Keep up the thoughts, and keep posting them.

TR

[johndeeregreen]

I don't want to pay more for tags!

[Blacktail Slayer]

I don't mind paying more if it goes to help our wildlife out. They should have done this a few years ago.

[BrianMaguire]

Hmmm, I think I am opposed to something that increases greater than the rate of inflation with no stop gaps. Government can and will spend it. Another thing is that it would codify that sportsmen continue to bear the brunt of funding for wildlife. With the public supporting wolves, a ban on cougar hound hunting, to me, means that they should bear some of the cost as well.

[baltz526]

all voter caused predation costs should come directly from the general fund. the voters approved this expense by ballot, forcing bad managment practices on the odfw.

At that point, the number of tag approved for residents would be known, and a simple math function (Species Baseline divided by number of Resident tags) would determine the cost of individual tags.
If, for example, 60,000 resident mule deer tags are approved, the cost of a general mule deer tag would be $ 2,000,000 divided by 60,000 tags, or $ 33.33 per tag. In 2011, after applying the 5% inflation factor, and again assuming 60,000 resident mule deer tags, the cost of a tag would be $ 35.00. If 40,000 resident tags are approved, the tag fee would be $50.00 in 2010, and $ 52.50 in 2011.
This is the basic funding mechanism I am proposing. It is designed to provide ODF&W a stable, inflation adjusted source of income to run the Mule Deer and Elk management programs regardless of the number of tags approved. It should also result in tag numbers being set based strictly on biological data, since the income stream to the Department is not affected by tag numbers approved

i like this funding idea, with one exception. it should be actual inflation, not a set expected inflation number. to be set each year at tag number setting time

[Rank Amateur]

Good work Scoutdog5, I don't know if I agree though. With this scenario the department is held harmless, which in most cases is alright, they can't be held responsible for bad weather or wolves forced down their throat. But shouldn't there be a factor for performance? Let's say M.O.'s, buck ratio's, hunter opportunity scores or Unit hunter opportunity scores. The better they perform the more they are rewarded with fee adjustments, this would create incentives to perform and manage better. This would provide a counter to outside pressures that make it easier to just issue kill permits, because that is painless. As a hunter, shouldn't I pay more for better opportunity?

We have to face it, wildlife management is basically killing animals, there is very little proactive management. I know the legislature has tied the hands of ODF&W so they can't lobby for the wildlife, but having a financial incentive would make a difference in some decisions.

[huntinfool]

States like Wyoming and Nevada are over $30-$38 for a Mule Deer tag and $52-$120 for elk tags.

Nevada also puts a $2-$3 surcharge to fund predation control on their deer and elk tags.

I don't mind increases in tag, license and application prices as long as the money goes directly to fund wildlife (not fish) and stays out of the general fund (just say NO to Kulongoski).

Idaho charges $6.50 per application for big game hunting.

Oregon is THE cheapest state in the west to hunt, even for non-residents. It cost less than $100 to buy a non-res license and apply for all the hunts.

[baltz526]

nonresident prices for license and applications being low is good, but tag fees once they draw should be higher. i can see $250 plus a resident tag fee for a drawing deer tag. $500 plus a resident tag fee for elk, antelope. free cougar tags for all nonresidents who buy a big game tag also.

[huntinfool]

I'd like to see cougar hunting become unlimited tags ie: buy as many as you want to. Kind of like a bobcat harvest tag.

I'd also like to see a 2-5 year wait on rifle antelope tags (similar to Nevada's system).

In Idaho, you can apply for deer, elk and antelope but then you can't apply for goat, sheep or moose and visa versa.

In Utah, you have to choose ELK, DEER OR ANTELOPE (you only get to choose one species).

Why doesn't Oregon use some of these states that are doing a great job of managing wildlife as role models?

[Joe]

Originally Posted by scoutdog5

Given the funding shortfalls over the last few years, which are reflected in a lack of enforcement, failure to do annual trend counts on a large no. of units, etc,

I can certainly understand why better enforcement is needed but why is there a problem doing trend counts? As far as I know there has not been any reduction in manpower. If trend counts are not getting done I would have to assume it's because it is not a priority.

I'm willing to pay more for a tag but lets not get carried away to the point where many can't afford to hunt.

[huntinfool]

What others pay............these prices do NOT include any hunting licenses or habitat stamps required.

Arizona:
Elk $120.50
Deer $42.25
Antelope $85

California:
Elk $354
Deer $26
Antelope $118

Colorado:
Elk $46
Deer $31
Antelope $31

Idaho:
Elk $30.75
Deer $19.75
Antelope $31.75

Montana
Elk $20
Deer $16
Antelope $19

Nevada
Elk $120
Deer $30
Antelope $60

New Mexico
Elk $61-$91
Deer $39
Antelope $61

Oregon
Elk $34.50
Deer $19.50
Antelope $36.50

Utah
Elk $45-$280 (greater price reflects Limited Entry)
Deer $35 for general $75 for limited entry
Antelope $50

Washington ?? this state has some difficult regs
Elk $39.42
Deer $39.42

Wyoming
Elk $57
Deer $43
Antelope $38

As you can see Oregon residents don't pay much to hunt compared to alot of states. I would support having two fee bases: west side general tags should be cheaper and East side Limited Entry tags be slightly more money. I also support that ALL tags go through a drawing including archery. I feel the days of "general seasons" need to go away.

[scoutdog5]

Great comments and discussion, guys, keep them coming.

Some comments and answers:

The Rogue: I have studied fairly extensively how Nevada, Utah, New Mexico, Wyoming, Colorado, Montana and Oregon manage their big deer and elk populations. The only one of those states that is meeting their objectives for mule deer is Colorado. That was accomplished by cutting their tag numbers in half, raising fees, getting one time funding in 1999 to cover the shortfall. See post "Something to think about, Part 1". In my opinion, every state except Colorado is determining deer tag numbers based on revenue needed, rather than best biological data. Nevada might be an exception to that, there tag numbers are much smaller than the other states, so license fees are not as big a factor. I developed this concept for one reason, and one reason only: To take money out of the process of determining the proper number of tags to issue. The goal is to have science and herd dynamics determine the proper amount of tags to issue.

When you have a horrible winter and most of your deer die, you probably shouldn't hunt them at all. If you do, it ought to cost a lot, but don't worry, your chances of drawing would be tiny, so you would probably save money.

jdgreen: Pretty hard to understand complaining about paying more for he tag, which goes to help wildlfe, given the increase of driving your rig to the hunting area. In my case, a deer tag's worth of gas will get me 1/2 the way to camp, an elk tag most of the way.

Brian: I agree 100% with everything you said. Show me a scenario where funding from another source could actually be achieved, and i will push for it. My opinion, and I could be wrong, is that we have two choices. 1. Do nothing, and watch the quality of our big game herds and hunting opportunities continue to deteriorate, or 2. Step up to the plate, fork out the bucks, and start working to make things better.

Rank, you are absolutely right, i am holding the department harmless, in essence having us bail them out for 30+ years of taking the easy road when it comes to managing our big game herds. That, of course, is a simplification, but more accurate than not, particularly in hindsight. I have elected to tackle the funding problem first, since there is no chance the department will seriously consider instituting changes that would improve herd dynamics, but cost them income. If something like my proposal were to go through, the far more important part of the job will be holding the department accountable for using their enhanced resources to stop the downward spiral. I have thought long and hard about your suggestion on incentives. I agree in principal but am at a loss as to how to actually do it. Any ideas?

huntinfool and baltz, I agree about cougar tags. How about Idaho's program, which let's you use your deer tag on a bear or cougar? Can't see a single reason not to sell additional cougar tags, although I don't know how many people could actually get two of the sneaky buggers. I will check and see if free Cougar tags, or using your deer tag on a cougar takes legislative action, and if so, will add it to the proposal. If not, will save it for round two.

Huntinfool, I think choosing between deer and elk each year, and particularly on getting preference points is a good idea, but my sense is it will raise a lot of opposition within the hunting community, so I am staying away from that at this time.

As to states doing a great job, I would say Colorado has done a great job on deer, but had very favorable conditions, we will see how they react to the winter kill going on now. In good conscience, I could not give any other state a rating above mediocre. Utah is held in high esteem by many for their limited entry elk herd, but they are headed for trouble in many units with bull/cow ratios that are completely out of whack.

Joe: In eastern Oregon, pretty much all trend counts are done by helicopter, at around $ 500.00 an hour. Every year, fewer units are actually counted, and ODF&W is starting to talk about using computer models to calculate herd numbers, greatly reducing the number of units actually counted. This will be a disaster in my opinion.

Huntinfool, great info on costs from the states. If you had added the non-resident fees and costs for preference points, you would see that the low cost states to residents, Idaho, Wyoming, Montana, really stick it to the non-resident. As to two prices, that is included in the next part of the proposal I will post later tonight, actually later this morning.

Keep em comin guys

Scoutdog

[Rank Amateur]

Scoutdog-the incentive would be to set the base level on what we have now and determine the fee structure as you have put forward. Then develope a fomula using total population in each unit, the M.O. for the unit, buck ratio versus M.O. buck ratio, hunter success versus the baseline success, ect. Instead of having the mind set that of when the department actually increases these factors of just issueing more tags at the same or reduced price, we would actually reward the department for the increase by increasing the price. I guess the opposite could be held true also, if they are unsuccessful the price of the tag could decrease as a penalty. Or you could just hold at the baseline value.

[scoutdog5]

Rank, philosophically, I absolutely agree with you. The trick is how you evaluate performance, and who decides how they did. How do you factor in things like wolves, winter kill, etc. when it comes to populations. The only thing the dept really controls is hunter numbers. Don't even really control harvest, since very favorable weather conditions can increase the harvest substantially above what was expected, and thus negatively impact herd dynamics.

The second part of the problem is that reducing the department's income might make us feel good, but leads to disaster. So many parts of their budget are mandated by outside forces, that the only place they ever make cuts is directly to the management programs they completely control, ie: trend counts, enforcement, research, etc.

Without question, this proposal holds the Department harmless for a long history of poor management practices when it comes to big game. To be blunt, it bothers me, but now that I am old, results are more important than retribution.

If this proposal were to be put in place, the absolute key will be to hold the department accountable for using the money to actually improve the productivity and populations of our herds. We are going to have to demand full fianancial disclosure, 100% trend counts and surveys, 100% hunter reporting every year for every species, etc. if we don't, I absolutely believe we will end up where we are now, but with a lot less money in our pocket.

It all starts, however, with giving them the resources to at least have a chance to do the job. We are not doing that currently, and that is the first step. If we get that done, there is certainly no guarantee of success, but at least we have a chance.

Scoutdog

[baltz526]

ttt