Big Game Funding Proposal - It's done

[scoutdog5]

Eureka!!!!

I have finished the big game funding proposal many of you contributed to over the past 10 days. It is waaaaay too long to post here, so I have included my email address below. Drop me an email that you want it, and I will email it back to you. It is a word document, so you will need word software to open it.

Later tonight I will post a summary of what I finally decided to recommend, and then my opinion of what would be accomplished if it were to be enacted.

Thanks everyone for your help.

Scoutdog
mjmorris50@comcast.net

[baltz526]

Ttt

[baltz526]

Big Game Funding Proposal

Introduction

Wildlife Policy, ORS 469.012:
It is the policy of the State of Oregon that wildlife shall be managed to prevent serious depletion of any indigenous species and to provide the optimum recreation and aesthetic benefits for present and future generations of the citizens of this state. In furtherance of this policy, the State Fish and Wildlife Commission shall represent the public interest of the State of Oregon and implement the following coequal goals of wildlife management:
To maintain all species of wildlife at optimum levels.
To develop and manage the lands and waters of this state in a manner that will enhance the production and public enjoyment of wildlife.
To permit an orderly and equitable utilization of available wildlife.
To develop and maintain public access to the lands and waters of the state and the wildlife resources thereon.
To regulate wildlife populations and the public enjoyment of wildlife in a manner that is compatible with primary uses of the lands and waters of the state.
To provide optimum recreational benefits.
To make decisions that affect wildlife resources of the state for the benefit of the wildlife resources and to make decisions that allow for the best social, economic and recreational utilization of wildlife resources by all user groups.

Over the past 40 years, we have seen a substantial decrease in the numbers of deer that occupy Oregon. Even over the past 10 years, when a series of very mild winters should have resulted in increasing populations, the decline continued. By the department’s own estimate in 2007, the mule deer population of 235,000 was less than half the estimated population of 500,000 in the early 60’s.
Over the past 15 years, we have also experienced a substantial decrease in Rocky Mountain elk, with populations declining from close to 90,000 in the early 90’s, to somewhere around 60,000 today.
Over those same time frames, the funding model being used by Oregon as it relates to big game populations has remained virtually unchanged. Tag and license fees are set by the legislature, which also mandates limits on non-resident hunter tag sales. In addition, both State and Federal Governments have passed numerous mandates which have required funding by the Wildlife Division, without any corresponding funding. The basic practice in Oregon going back at least to the seventies has been to go to the Legislature for small fee increases, negotiate even smaller actual increases with the politicians, then live as long as possible with those fees, until program demands require additional income, at which point the process starts over again. In no case has the legislature seen fit to institute minimal inflation based increases on an annual basis, as is being done in some other states. The department is starting that process again, with the intention of going to the 2009 legislature for modest fee and license increases.

Introduction (cont)

The end result of this process over the past 30 years is that the ability of the Wildlife Division to fund necessary programs that would keep them in compliance with the statutory mandate printed above has been degraded. Today, the Wildlife Division does not have adequate funds to do such basic wildlife management practices as trend counts on a state wide basis, comprehensive hunter success surveys, adequate law enforcement, etc. Additionally, projects that can be shown to provide a benefit to population numbers, predator control, road closures, habitat improvement projects, etc, are not implemented due to a lack of funding. Finally, dollars for research are virtually non-existent, and the truth is we really don’t know why mule deer and elk numbers are being reduced in virtually every geographic area and habitat type in Eastern Oregon.
Without question, the Department is currently unable to meet the objectives outlined above, certainly as it relates to maintaining optimum populations of all species. Given that, it is difficult to see how placing another band-aid on the very serious budget shortfalls that currently exist within the Wildlife Division can be expected to achieve a turnaround in our big game populations.
This proposal is designed to provide the Wildlife Division with a budget process that provides the necessary resources to not only stop the ongoing reduction in populations, but provide sufficient funding to begin to rebuild those populations in compliance with the Wildlife Policy stated above.

History and Data

Mule Deer

Starting in the early 70’s, some of us began to talk to Department biologists and staff about what appeared to be a decrease in mule deer populations in parts of Eastern Oregon. At the time, we were told it was a typical fluctuation in populations, and there was no long term problem or concern. As we moved into the 80’s, it became obvious even to the department that there was a serious problem occurring with mule deer population dynamics. During that time period, reductions in Mule Deer populations were occurring in virtually every western state, and the mantra of the various Wildlife Divisions was that this was a result of massive changes in habitat, winter range, human encroachment, road building, etc. and the reduction involved forces that were outside the parameters that Wildlife Departments could change or regulate. This basic philosophy remained in place for the next 20 years, and is heard in discussions with wildlife professionals in Oregon to this day.

History and Data: Mule Deer (Cont)

In 1999, Colorado, which, like Oregon, had seen similar reductions in their mule deer populations, instituted a completely new philosophy of managing their mule deer population. Here are the results of that change:
Management Objective for Deer: 630,000
Average number of hunters 1980 through 1998: 185,300
Average harvest 1980 through 1998: 64,000
Estimated Deer population 1998: 475,000
Estimated Buck Ratio 1998: 10-20/100 does
Average number of hunters 1999 through 2005: 84,400
Average harvest 1999 through 2005: 36,600
Estimated Mule Deer population 2006: 610,000
Estimated Buck Ratio 2005: 39/100 does
During that same time frame, here is the information for Oregon:
Management Obj. for Mule Deer: 347,700 (revised down from 366,600 in 2005)
Number of hunters 1998: 91,592
Harvest 1998: 36,735
Estimated Mule Deer Population 1998: 250,000 (estimated)
Estimated Buck Ratio 1999: 17/100 does
Number of hunters 2006: 74,257
Harvest 2006: 24,136
Estimated Mule Deer Population 2006: 237,500 (estimated)
Estimated Buck Ratio 2006: 18/100 does

Note: Oregon Populations are estimates because the department has not done trend counts on a number of units over this time period, making any number provided an educated guess at best.
Today, Colorado is the only Mule Deer state where population numbers have not only stopped declining, but have increased to the point that they are approaching their statewide objective for mule deer populations.
For the past several years, it has been obvious to anyone who took the time to look that Colorado had successfully reversed the decades long slide in mule deer populations. By contrast, Oregon continues to follow the same path that has contributed to our current situation, in spite of the mandate to maintain populations at optimal levels. My observation is that the severe budget constraints currently in place within the Wildlife Division have made it impossible for the Division to even consider any changes to their management plan if those changes would impact Division income in any way. This reality is one of the primary reasons I have developed this proposal.

History and Data

Rocky Mountain Elk

During the 70’s and 80’s, at the same time deer populations were crashing, Rocky Mountain elk were a true management success story, with populations and hunting opportunity growing at a steady rate, and elk expanding into new parts of the state. Unfortunately, the good times came to an end during the 90’s, and today, the risk of continued, severe reductions in elk populations is much higher for elk than mule deer.
Over the past 10 years, many elk units in Eastern Oregon have seen calf/cow ratios that have been substantially below the level needed to maintain an elk herd at current population levels, generally considered to be 30-35 calves/100 cows. Of equal concern is the fact that this is occurring over widely disparate units in different parts of the state. The Wenaha Unit in the Blue Mountains, for example, has relatively high mature bull numbers, large roadless and wilderness areas, and limited human interaction, yet has produced calf-cow ratios of 13/100, 30/100 and 20/100 over the past three years. At the same time, the Silvies Unit, a high desert unit west of Burns with much smaller mature bull numbers, heavily roaded with substantial human activity on a year round basis, has produced ratios of 14/100, 14/100 and 16/100. It is extremely unlikely that the underlying problems causing the extremely low calf ratios are the same for both units, yet the result is the same. Given that this problem has persisted over a number of years in many of these units, there is little doubt that the average age of breeding cows is increasing, and this has serious implications for herd productivity going forward, given the poor recruitment that continues to take place.
To the department’s credit, they have been much more aggressive in dealing with these population reductions of elk than they have with mule deer. Over the past 10 years, total Rocky Mountain elk tags have been reduced by almost 30,000, mostly antlerless permits, and virtually all rifle hunters. This has come at great cost in reduced income from tag sales, and a further reduction in the Division’s ability to fulfill it’s responsibilities. Unfortunately, there is no evidence this reduction has made things better, although it has likely slowed the slide in populations to some extent.
There is little doubt, based on current population numbers and calf/cow ratios, that Rocky Mountain elk populations will continue to decline in most of Eastern Oregon, to the point in some units where it will be difficult to justify any hunting seasons. This is the second primary reason I have developed this proposal.









The Proposal
Since significant parts of this proposal will require legislative approval, the target date for implementation, assuming it was approved, would be the big game hunting seasons in 2010. This proposal covers all deer and elk tag sales in Oregon, for all weapons. The preceding discussion focused on mule deer and rocky mountain elk, since those are the species I hunt and do research on, but the proposal includes tags for blacktail, whitetail, and roosevelt elk.
Here is the step-by-step process that this proposal would put in place:
The fundamental concept of this proposal is that income baselines would be established for both deer and elk, based on the income those tag sales generated for the department in 2009. Once this baseline is determined, a 5% inflation factor would be added for each succeeding year, starting in 2010.
Example: The total revenue to the department in 2009 from the sale of deer tags, all species, all weapons, all hunts, including limited entry and over-the-counter) is 4,000,000. (No clue what it might really be, this is just an example.) For 2010, the income baseline for deer would be 4,000,000 x 105%, or 4,200,000. For 2011, the income baseline for deer would be 4,200,000 x 105%, or 4,410,000, and so on going forward.
Once the baseline is established, the number of deer tags that were sold to residents the previous year (all seasons, all weapons, etc.) is determined. For purposes of this example, let’s assume that number was 150,000 in 2009, and 130,000 in 2010.
To arrive at the cost of a resident deer tag for any particular year, divide the income baseline for that year by the number of resident tags issued the previous year.
Example: For 2010, the income baseline is 4,200,000, and there were 150,000 resident tags issued in 2009, so the cost of a resident deer tag is 4,200,000 divided by 150,000, or 28.00 per tag. Under this proposal, the tag fee would be rounded up to the nearest dollar. Under this proposal this tag would be called a "Resident Regular Deer Tag." In 2011, the income baseline is 4,410,000, and the number of resident tags issued in 2010 was 130,000, so the cost of a resident "Regular Deer Tag" in 2011 would be 4,410,000 divided by 130,000, or 34.00 per tag.
The exact same process would be used to determine the cost of a Resident Regular elk tag.
The central objective of this proposal is to stabilize the income stream to ODF&W without regard to the number of tags that are approved, and add an inflation adjustment every year going forward. When tag numbers are increased, the tag fee goes down, when they are decreased, a more likely scenario, the tag fee goes up, but either way the income stream to the department remains constant with a 5% inflation adjustment every year.
Once the income baselines are determined, and the Resident Regular tag prices established, this proposal provides a number of additional components that

The Proposal (Cont)

are designed to provide additional opportunity to hunters, and substantial additional income to the department. In order to implement these components, some changes to existing policies would need to take place:
Deer and elk tags would need to be removed from the SportsPak license, or some other accommodation made to cover the changes in fee structure for these tags from year to year.
Currently, the Commission sets the tag numbers for all limited entry hunts, and then a 10% additional tag factor is applied. This 10% add-on would end under this proposal.
Additional tag components to this Proposal.
All limited entry resident tags for which a minimum of four points are required to draw will be named "Resident Premium Tags". The fee for these tags will be double the fee established for the Resident Regular Tag. Under the example above, the 2010 Resident Regular Deer Tag Fee was calculated at $ 28.00. In that example, the Resident Premium Deer Tag Fee would be $ 56.00. Once a hunt is designated as Premium, it would remain in the Premium pool unless the minimum points needed to draw the tag dropped below 3.
Non-residents would have their own draw for both Regular and Premium tags. If the Resident Tag for a particular hunt was designated "Premium", the corresponding non-resident tag would also be designated "Premium", regardless of how many points were required for a non-resident to draw. The fee for a Non-Resident Regular tag would be 10 times the Resident Regular tag. The fee for the Non-resident Premium tag would be 10 times the cost of the Resident Premium Tag. For limited entry hunts, the non-resident quota would be 10% of the tags approved for the Resident draw. Any leftover tags could be available in a second non-resident draw, or purchased directly from the department, but could not be added to any other draw, such as Resident or Youth. For those areas of the state where residents purchase over-the-counter tags, non-residents would still have limited entry, with separate draws for Blacktail Deer, Mule Deer, Rocky Mountain elk, and Roosevelt Elk. The tag would be good in any unit open for that species where residents purchased over the counter tags. There would be separate draws for archers and rifle hunters. The quota for each hunt would be 10% of the over the counter tags sold the previous year for that species and weapon.

A separate draw would be set up for Resident Youth for every limited entry deer and elk hunt. The quota would be 5% of the Resident tags authorized for that hunt. Resident youths could apply for the Resident Youth tags, or for the Resident Regular or Premium tags. Any leftover tags in the Resident Youth draws would NOT be transferred to other groups, but could be made available in a subsequent Resident Youth draw, or sold directly until they were gone. The fee for all tags issued in the Resident Youth draws would be $ 10.00. A Resident Youth who drew a Regular or Premium tag would pay the fee for that tag.

The Proposal (Cont)

At the present time, outfitters are given 50% of the non-resident tags that were issued for that hunt the previous year. That provision would be eliminated. Instead, outfitters would get their own draw for all deer and elk limited entry hunts. The tag quota would be 3% of the Resident tags authorized for that hunt. The tag fee would be the same as the Premium Non-Resident tag fee for that species, regardless of whether the end user was a resident or non-resident. The tags would be valid unit-wide. Outfitters would be prohibited from selling the tag to a third party for more than the purchase price.
A $5.00 dedicated surcharge would be added to all deer and elk tags sold in Oregon, starting in 2010. This money would be placed in it’s own dedicated account, and the department would publish on the ODF&W website on an annual basis a detailed account of the money collected, and how it was spent. These funds could be used for the following 3 purposes, at the discretion of the ODF&W:
a/ Provide funding for new green dot road closures, or the expansion (longer dates) of existing green dot road closures.
b/ Provide funding for additional enforcement of big game rules, regulations, seasons, etc. (Funds could not be used to fund the existing level of enforcement provided during 2009.)
c/ Materials and labor for fencing projects on private land where elk and deer are doing damage, and there is a reasonable expectation that affected animals would return to public land if the fence was constructed. (Landowners would be required to sign an agreement to keep the gates closed and fence maintained on a year round basis.)

The Proposal (Cont)

Example

In June, 2010, Resident tag numbers for hunt 237x, Ochoco 1st season limited entry bull, are set at 250 tags. This compares with 275 approved in 2009. (250 + 10% automatic increase to offset un-purchased tags.) For 2010, the Regular Resident elk tag is $ 40.00. In 2009, the Resident elk tag was 34.50, and the non-resident elk tag was $ 361.50. In 2010, 800 resident bow either sex tags were approved. In 2009, 880 resident bow either sex tags were approved. In 2009, the Resident bow tag took 2 points to draw, and the Resident Rifle tag took 5 points to draw.

2009

Type of Tag Number Fee Income

Resident Bow Tags: 840 34.50 28,980
Non-Resident Bow Tags: 20 361.50 7,230
Outfitter Bow Tags: 20 361.50 7,230
Resident Rifle Bull Tags: 263 34.50 9,074
Non-Resident Rifle Bull Tags: 6 361.50 2,169
Outfitter Rifle Tags: 7 361.50 2,531
Totals: 1,156 57,214
tags issued to residents: 95%
tags issued to non-residents: 5%
income paid by residents: 66%
income paid by non-residents: 34%

2010

Type of Tag Number Fee Income

Resident Regular Bow Tags: 800 40.00 32,000
Non-Resident Bow Tags: 80 400.00 32,000
Outfitter Special Tags: 24 800.00 19,200
Resident Youth Bow Tags 40 10.00 400
Resident Special Rifle Bull Tags: 250 80.00 20,000
Non-Res. Special Rifle Bull Tags: 25 800.00 20,000
Outfitter Special Rifle Tags: 8 800.00 6,400
Resident Youth Bow Tags: 13 10.00 130
Totals: 1,240 130,130
tags issued to residents: 89%
tags issued to non-residents: 11%
income paid by residents: 40%
income paid by non-residents: 60%
Income from $ 5.00 dollar tag fee: $ 6,200

Supporting Data

Although it is certainly true that every state is different, and what works in one will not necessarily work in another, I believe comparing tag sales income figures by state is a legitimate way to measure the level of support being provided to Fish and Game Departments by Residents and Non-resident tag sales. Shown below is a comparison for 8 western states’ income from Mule Deer and Rocky Mountain elk tag sales.
This comparison is a summary, with information for each state coming from several different sources of information, sometimes involving different years. In some cases, where tags have different prices, averages were used to determine total income, since specific counts by tag type were not provided. I was unable to determine this information for Idaho from their website. I elected not to include Nevada, due to the very low number of hunters, 15,000 for mule deer and 2,000 for elk.

Colorado

Type Number Tag Fee Total Raised
Resident Deer 56,962 $ 39 $ 2,221,518
Non-Resident Deer 22,246 $ 305 $ 6,785,030
Resident Elk 136,518 $ 54 $ 7,371,972
Non-Resident Elk 100,000 $ 254 - $ 529 $40,000,000
Total Income $56,378,520

Montana

Type Number Tag Fee Total Raised
Resident Deer 249,592 $ 20 $ 4,991,840
Non-Resident Deer 37,262 $ 200 $ 7,452,400
Resident Elk 151,098 $ 25 $ 3,777,450
Non-Resident Elk 20,534 $ 750 $15,400,500
Total Income $31,621,690

Wyoming

Type Number Tag Fee Total Raised
Resident Deer 37,219 $ 43 $ 1,600,417
Non-Resident Deer 27,441 $326 - $ 566 $10,976,400
Resident Elk 47,551 $ 57 $ 2,710,407
Non-Resident Elk 9,917 $591 - $1,071 $ 6,939,800
Non-Res. Pref Pt $ 40 - $ 50 $ 1,000,000
Total Income $23,227,024

Utah

Type Number Tag Fee Total Raised
Resident Deer 82,000 $ 35 - $ 163 $ 3,016,000
Non-Resident Deer 6,422 $263 - $ 563 $ 1,713,281
Resident Elk 39,812 $ 45 - $ 280 $ 2,276,815
Non-Resident Elk 2,163 $388 - $ 795 $ 905,565
Non-Resident License: 15,968 $ 65 $ 1,037,920
Total Income $ 8,949,571

Washington

Type Number Tag Fee Total Raised
Resident Deer 78,053 $ 39 $ 3,044,082
Non-Resident Deer 7,800 $ 394 $ 3,073,200
Resident Elk 30,885 $ 39 $ 1,204,526
Non-Resident Elk 3,090 $ 394 $ 1,217,460

Total Income $ 8,539,268
Note: Mule Deer and Rocky Mountain Elk tag sales only

Arizona

Type Number Tag Fee Total Raised
Resident Deer 50,257 $ 42 $ 2,110,827
Non-Resident Deer 5,026 $ 233 $ 1,171,058
Resident Elk 21,906 $ 121 $ 2,650,735
Non-Resident Elk 2,190 $ 595 $ 1,303,050
No-Res. License 7,000 $ 151 $ 1,057,000
Total Income $ 8,292,371

New Mexico

Type Number Tag Fee Total Raised
Resident Deer 27,232 $ 47 $ 1,279,904
Non-Resident Deer 5,053 $ 278 - $ 363 $ 1,718,020
Resident Elk 16,184 $ 61 - $ 91 $ 1,213,800
Non-Resident Elk 3,926 $ 333 - $ 768 $ 2,355,600
Total Income $ 6,567,324

Oregon

Type Number Tag Fee Total Raised
Resident Deer 82,620 $ 20 $ 1,645,200
Non-Resident Deer 2,853 $ 265 $ 756,045
Resident Elk 48,750 $ 35 $ 1,706,250
Non-Resident Elk 2,400 $ 362 $ 868,800
Non-Res. Hunting Lic. 7,000 $ 76 $ 532,000
Total Income $ 5,208,295

Supporting Data (Continued)

Based on this data, I can only see two possible conclusions that could be reached:
Oregon is very efficient in managing their elk and mule deer programs, while the other states are typical government bureaucracies wasting millions of dollars.
Oregon is grossly underfunding it’s elk and mule deer mamagement program.

Conclusion

This proposal has two major objectives:
Stabilize deer and elk tag revenue to ODF&W, and add an annual inflation factor to that income, without regard to whether the number of tags goes up or down.
Provide substantial additional revenue to the department through the addition of Premium tags, Non-Resident tags and Outfitter tags.
Without question, the ODF&W big game programs are severely underfunded. Over the past ten years, the number of units in which annual trend counts are not conducted have significantly increased. Very few road closures have been added or expanded, even where local biologists believe that would be appropriate. Limited research projects are being funded, particularly for deer. Enforcement, both staffing and coverage hours, have been reduced. In every case, when these issues are discussed with biologists and staff, the answer is we just don’t have sufficient funding. Objective 2 of this proposal, if enacted, would provide significant additional funds which would allow ODF&W to adequately fund the big game management programs on an ongoing basis.
There is a widely held belief among the hunting community that maintaining funding is a major factor in ODF&W decisions regarding the number of tags they approve for various hunts. In some cases, antlerless elk tags on the Silvies unit, spike tags on the Wenaha unit, for example, it is difficult to find any other justification for those tags except income to ODF&W. This widespread cynicism about ODF&W’s motives certainly contributes substantially to the opposition to funding increases that exists within the various hunting groups. By completely severing the relationship between income and tag numbers, Objective 1 removes this mistrust from the rate setting process, and hopefully results in the various hunting communities focusing on what needs to be done to begin to improve our big game populations.
Finally, I have observed over the past several years a disturbing trend on the part of land managers, biologists and agencies to become facilitators and discussion leaders rather than advocates. This trend was very obvious during the 2004 ODF&W meetings to discuss the changes to deer and elk management objectives, but has also become the driving force behind the Travel Management Plans being implemented by federal agencies, at least at those

Conclusion (Cont)

meetings I have attended. This approach seems to be based on a philosophy that if we all just get together and share our thoughts and ideas and concerns, consensus can be achieved, and the world will be a wonderful place. Now, I am certainly not opposed to agencies giving opportunities for interested parties to communicate their ideas, thoughts, concerns about various topics, but the brutal truth is these discussions will rarely, if ever, resolve the basic underlying conflicts that make land and game management so complicated in this day and age. At the end of the day, we desperately need the professionals, in this case the staff and commissioners at ODF&W, to stand up and make the case aggressively and effectively for what needs to be done to achieve improvement in big game populations in Oregon. Whatever plan is ultimately chosen to take to the legislature, I sincerely hope ODF&W staff and commissioners will spell out in detail the problems we are facing as a direct result of our funding shortfalls, and how the proposed increases/new methodology will provide the necessary funding to achieve a different result than we have seen over the past 20+ years.
Respectfully submitted,

Mike Morris

[baltz526]

thank you very much, for having the drive and knowledge to put this together! also by giving IFISH'ERS the oportunity to see the growth of this proposal. i truely hope it is implemented and is completely successful

[scoutdog5]

Baltz, thanks for posting it, and the kind words.

I submitted to the head honchos at the Wildlife Division today. I will forward to the commision, OHA, Oregon Bowhunters, etc. later this week. Thought I would give the Wildlife boys a head start.

The word document is easier to read, particularly the statistics, so if anyone wants the word document, send an email to my email address below and I will send it to you.

Feel free to send it to anyone you want, but if you do, please include my contact info from below.

I will keep you posted on the responses I get from various parties, assuming I get some.

Scoutdog
Mike Morris
mjmorris50@comcast.net

[baltz526]

i have sent it complete to my email list and later today i'll work on the secure emails that i have to do individually.

[baltz526]

it is in greg waldens email and lars larsen replied good idea. so word of the proposal is spreading.

[ehunter]

Wow great work thanks for taking the time to pull all this together....lets hope we see some results.

[scottishsetter]

And it shall from here on out be refered to as:?


New Big Game Funding Proposal
?????Get it out there and refer to it with a name that stays the same....everytime. Thanks scoutdog5

[mtn300]

great job.

[merrile]

Thank you for all the hard work!

[scoutdog5]

Scottishsetter: Dynamite suggestion.

The new official title for this baby is:

"New Big Game Funding Proposal"

I think it is definitely a good idea if we attach that name to everything that goes out about it.

Again, the word document is much easier to read, especially the spreadsheet info, so if you are planning on forwarding it on to anyone I recommend you email me, and I will send you the word document.

I don't know if this will get anywhere, but hopefully it will at least stimulate some discussion and consideration for trying something different than what has been proven unsuccessful over the past thirty years.

Thanks for the support everyone.

Scoutdog
mjmorris50@comcast.net