IMAGE SHOULD TRUMP MONEY
Trophy Tag Auctions Bad Business
How about this alternate plan that raises as much money for wildlife conservation but without negative headlines?By Bill Schneider, 2-26-09
 |
|
 | |
| The quarter-million-dollar sheep. Is it worth it?. Photo courtesy of Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks Department. | |
|
We might not need to read about yet another example of hunters assuming the role of their own worst enemy in the war to save our hunting tradition, but I can’t resist writing about this one.
Here in the New West, we’ve had at least three recent headliners about our state wildlife agencies and conservation organizations condoning and even promoting the practice of the super-rich paying obscene amounts of money to buy big game licenses. Does this practice really promote the future of hunting or give it another self-inflicted black eye?
Specifically, Dennis Austad, an Idaho contractor, launched a fierce debate when he forked over $150,000 for the right to hunt any elk in any district open to any type of hunting in Utah. Then, with the help of a squad of outfitters and guides (not included in the price of the tag), he managed to bag a world record elk. Click here and here to experience the push back (be sure to read the comments).
Then in February, Robert Kay, a Utah resident, paid $205,000 for permission to hunt mule deer anywhere in his state and a week or so later, an anonymous Illinois sandwich shop owner bid $245,000 for the right to hunt a bighorn sheep in Montana. I can’t give you his name because the Wild Sheep Foundation, a nonprofit that conducted the auction, refuses to release his name. What does that say?
These are only three of many examples. This questionable practice has been going on, annually, for twenty years or more. I’m not even sure when it started. And not just in Idaho, Montana and Utah--in most if not all western states and many eastern states.
I understand the nonprofits and wildlife agencies receiving these bonuses put the money to good use, and I certainly have no problem with rich people donating large sums of money to conservation organizations or wildlife agencies for research or habitat improvement. I wish they’d do even more of it.
The economics of the trophy tag auctions is clear. Wildlife research and habitat benefit. But is anybody looking at the image this ritual sends out to all of us have-not hunters and the majority of the non-hunting populace?
I know most hunters of ordinary means spend a lifetime dreaming about the opportunity to hunt bighorn sheep or being able to afford the best outfitter in the state and a dozen guides to make sure something worthy of a taxidermist’s time comes from the high-priced permit. Yet, a high-net-worther can buy it whenever he wants it. And to this person, $245,000 might not even represent a lot of money, nor does he have any trouble taking off the entire big game season from work to make sure he fills his trophy tag.
I remember the days these headlines hit the news. Down at the ORG (Old Retired Guys) table at the coffee shop, everybody had nothing but words of disgust for the idea of selling trophy licenses to the highest bidder.
If a bunch of hunters like we ORGs find the practice embarrassing, what do non-hunters think about it? These are the people who represent the “swing votes” when the next anti-hunting initiative comes around.
And anti-hunting organizations? They must have a heyday with this policy, using it to further smear all hunters as rich, overweight, greedy trophy hunters with big rooms built onto their mansions to display all the mounts. Most hunters don’t fit that mold, of course, but these front-page headlines send out this message.
This is a big deal. Collectively, we’re talking about many millions raised for wildlife conservation courtesy of the richest among us. In Utah alone, the trophy tag auctions netted $1.5 million this year and $17 million over the past ten years.
I hope it’s worth the money because it doesn’t polish the image of hunting, even among most hunters.
So, what’s the alternative? I have a suggestion.
I believe many of the well-heeled hunters who bid on these trophy tags do it in part because they intend to contribute to wildlife conservation. Robert Kay said as much while writing his $205,000 check for a permit to hunt mule deer he could’ve purchased for $35. With this in mind, how about re-formatting the auctions to encourage wealthy people to bid on who can donate the most to elk winter range acquisition or wild sheep research with no trophy tag in return? Then, the headlines would read UTAH HUNTER GIVES $205,000 TO MULE DEER RESEARCH or ILLINOIS HUNTER DONATES $245,000 TO WILD SHEEP PRESERVATION.
That sounds a little better, don’t you think?
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Comments
I would like to invite you or anyone else who's interested to spend a little time down by stafford ferry this fall. All the talk is about who paid what for access to certain private land. The high rollers who can pay $200,000 for a sheep tag pay the most. If you have a 200+ sheep on your place you have just won the lottery. These auctions lock up more land than any policy the BLM would ever implement. Sheep hunting access in the breaks is driven by auction prices.
There is a real weird story floating around about some sting operation gone bad down there last fall, why don't you call FW&P;and ask a few questions.
Understand that they can only hunt in units that open to other tag holders for that unit. Any one with a license for the wold record elk killed this year could have taken that bull. It just so happens that if you have enough money you can buy almost any tag you want without waiting several years to draw the tag.
The money is very well spent on habitat and other things.
We don't let people with a million dollars vote twice.
If our wildlife programs are underfunded, it is because our elected officials made that decision. Let's put better people in office.
"sounds to me like you are jealous of johs with money! I can tell you that most of these johns that buy these whores are good people. They have a lot of money and they like to screw. Understand that they can only screw in whorehouses like everybody else. Anybody can screw a whore. It just so happens if you have a lot of money you can screw the really pretty whore instead of the bucktoothed cow. The money is well spent on crack and other things.
I think that culture is, predictable human behavior based on language, beliefs and environment.
Natural Hunting is a dying culture to be sure, as hunters become more affluent, and travel farther to hunt and lose the idea of the local, the culture will die, just like every body else's.
You can't buy culture.
If I'm the last generation, then so be it, but you all need to know that a way of life, one that you may not agree with, one that values a gun, and four-wheel drive, and six-inches of snow, and deer and elk, and a warm fire, talking with an old friend in a canyon with the names of our ancestors etched in the paper white bark of the golden quakies, and the call of a bull elk on a frosty morn...
There is no amount of money I'd sell any of that for...
What's worse, the image portrayed on television or the one of a few rich guys buying some animals? What does the general public actually see? They see the folks on TV, not some guy shooting the world's biggest elk. He's not on four different network channels. I don't see the networks dumping their profits back in to places where the animals they film lived and died. Those tag monies get back to the ground to fund habitat projects.
I think we should focus our energy on getting hunting off prime time and less time worrying about a few rich guys buying their animals.
The rhetorical naysayers here, or antis, can build there homes in the national parks, if they have the money!
They can be the BMOC in their local club, or church, if they have the money!
They can live their protected, air conditioned snobbish, holier than thou lives in their gated communities, if they have the money!
They scream hunters are takers, slobs, fat pigs, redneck yo-yos while they consume 45% of the gross world output. But, because they dont hunt they are better than all others.
If Austad had not killed this elk, you would have never seen it and would have nothing to bitch about. This elk was 10 years old and never reported being seen.
You naysayers have missed the connection to the land and have no understanding of the cycle of life.
I have seen your type as you vacation with your overwieght families at local restaurants and motels, drinking sodas and eating cheetos as you sloth your way from the hotel pool to your room. Or you green tree huggers, pale, thin,lonely, crabby, complaining dry mouths, because no one wants to live like you. You roam the world and suck the life out of every human you come in contact with because of your bitterness with OMG hunters!!!
Just remember, you may rely on a hunter someday to feed your sorry a$$ when there is no food to be had from your bankrupt organic food store. But that will never happen, will it!
"Horn Porn" is what the industry has promoted. Yet, virtually every "expert" hunter has been proven a fraud in time. The ones who haven't been caught lying and cheating yet, will eventually.
Those of us who actually hunt for food will pay the price, just like those of us who lived within our means are paying the price now.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It's its natural manure" Thomas Jefferson 1787
"A little revolution is good from time to time" Thomas Jefferson
Have a lottery that allows anyone to buy as many "tickets" (opportunities to win) as they like. Just like the auction, it does allow the winner to hunt a species anywhere they like.
rich guys can buy 1000 $5 chances, poor guys can buy one, but the poor guy can still win. All the money goes to habitat and access.
Admittedly, I'm not really sure where the Montana money goes, but I'm sure habitat and access are part of it.
The program does need to be promoted to continue ticket sales, just like the "powerball" needs marketing.
But the biggest thing about the auciton is the recognition the winner/donor gets. This should alos be part of the markeeting program. Marketing should recognize the guy who buiys one, but also the guy who buys 100.
as it is now, I suspect the Montana game lottery will drop in sales, simply because it is not marketed.
Needless to say, when sales go low, that's a good time to buy!!
since your odds will be so much better!
Let the administrators administrate. Let the rich spend. And go to the forest with your own well-founded beliefs that allow you to create a humble and rewarding experience. I don't know about the rest of you, but once I step to the field, hunting becomes a conversation between myself and nature. If the rich man can't see that, then I guess he is'nt very rich.
http://insideoutsidemag.com/issues/2007/October_November/Control/
It is not only auctions but greedy outfitters that only want the rich so they, themselves can prosper from what the common hunter has only dreams of doing. We all need to take 2 steps back & see thats its the experience of being afield & the chance of seeing game with expectations of the harvest not the kill. Wildlife depends on us all not just the wealthy few.
the outright purchase of a permit,
the puchase of any opportunity to hunt with "special" considerations,
or the puchase of a guarantee to hunt with an outfitter in a certain state or area,
is not only to have the opportunity to kill and possess an animal,
but to provide funds for management and (particularly important), to provide habitat and (secondarily) access.
If no cash flows through the system, how will these things be funded.
I sympathize with the noble and pure concepts, and certainly feel them in myself, and leave commercialization behind when I hike or hunt, but there are obvious economic concerns.
Equalizing opportunity is critical, and encouraging all users, including wildlife watchers, to contribute is essential in todays world.
Here's something to consider: If monies generated by the governor's auction weren't available, the state and FNAWS would have fewer resources with which to manage and establish populations. Would it be better to not have the species present and have equal access, or have the species established but with a license priority given to someone with bank? (Bank that in turn goes to help benefit the species.) Speaking for myself, I would much rather know that the sheep are here than not.
The rest of us still have access to the lottery system. We aren't, as individuals, noticeably hurt by the governor's tag auction. Indeed, we've seen real benefit from it. At least now we have a CHANCE to hunt a sheep, whereas thirty years ago, there was little opportunity at all. Were it not for the governor's tag, there's a risk (my opinion) that our potential sheep hunting would be degraded from the current conditions, or perhaps limited to a few zones around Yellowstone and Glacier.
Bill, rather than a rather poorly informed opinion piece, I would welcome some real reporting on this issue. Where do the monies generated by other state auctions go? What proportion of the monies raised go to benefit the species being hunted? That seems to me to be the real issue. How has the public benefited from the auctions? How has the public been damaged? Give us some numbers...
As I stated in the commerntary, I'm very aware that the money bid for these permits goes to good uses and benefits the species. I only suggest that since some of these rich folks seem truly interested in making a contribution to wildlife research and habitat, perhaps they might consider bidding on who can donate the most money, get their name in the news for doing it, but not receive a special permit in exchange. It's hard to believe these current crop of headlines cast a positive light on hunting. And we need all the positive light we can get nowadays.
Bill
I don't think it's a realistic idea, though, to suggest that, for the sake of avoiding headlines, most of these guys would pony up the same kind of money for conservation without some kind of reward. The idea of paying high rates for exotic hunts, at least in the Safari Club crowd, is too well entrenched. The Subway Sandwich tycoon from back east presumably has little connection to Montana or its bighorns, and would no doubt keep his money if it weren't for the tag. The gov's tag seems to me a way of benefiting the species without unduly harming the rest of us. If it's a choice between negative headlines or a lack of funding for bighorn sheep management, I'll take the headlines.
Fish guy, thanks for the insight into Oregon. I would be very interested in other takes that might be out there. Anybody from Utah know where the money goes for the mule deer tag? Does it benefit mule deer?
The Farm Bill is welfare for the rich, in many cases and it needs to end. Contact your State Representatives and tell them you support taxing landowners who sell hunts as corporations and remove their agricultural tax breaks.
Now, I am as conservative as they come but this will ruin hunting for food. It already did in the late 1800's and early 1900's. Commercialization of hunting is not new and it has terrible consequences. There used to be 60 million Buffalo. End of story. You play, YOU PAY!
It's a good question. I think in the face of declining hunter numbers (which seems to be the pall hanging over every facet of every discussion about hunting), everybody's worried about how to present the best face. But I also see hunting -- good hunting, ethical hunting, eat-what-you-shoot hunting -- as experiencing a cultural resurgence. Thanks in part to the local foodavore movement, even New Yorkers are seeing hunting as a carbon-friendly way to put food on the table. So indeed, it's actually a great question. Do negative headlines truly impact hunting?
Bill? Further thoughts?
Or is this ultimately an access issue? (Wealthy hunters are associated with limited public access, ergo anything that wealthy hunters are involved with must be bad for the sport.) Paid access is bad. Public access is good. I'm not sure the equation holds up (particularly when the monies go to a good cause), but nevertheless that's the debate.
Again...thoughts?
We all know recruitment is a big problem, and the worse the image of hutning, the more parents discourage their children from going into it. And the fewer the hunters, the fewer the votes that we might need someday to pass or defeat important legislation or ballot measures.
That's my $0.02.
Bill
If you are going to take a comprehensive look at the situation, then do it comprehensively.
First, the hunting community, in general, has over the past, well, decades, both through local social and political mechanisms and through national groups like the NRA, overwhelmingly supported rightwing let-the-fat-cats-take-what-they-can-and-do-what-they-please politics. Those of us who have not and will never subscribe to this neo-KKK juggernaut still got dragged through the mud of everything from lax environmental regulation to costly cooked up wars clearly tailored to yield no-bid contracts to corporate corruption that cost us fortunes and may have ended our country as we know it. Now, the same collection of "sportsmen" want to whine about one of their own fat-cats buying himself a ~$quarter million trophy. The hunting community needs to come out of denial; you asked for it, continually over the past several decades and you got it.
Next, as far as the image of the hunter goes, let me share some personal experience. I am older now; but, my father ran a foundry with what, at that time, was a very advanced associated machine shop. My father was obsessed with the development of ever higher velocities in rifle cartridges; he was known in those days for what were called "wildcat" cartridges and, over the years, he acquired a bit of relative fame within the rarefied cult world of long distance shooters. When Friday night came, we never just relaxed; we hurried into our weekend chores so that we could spend the actual weekend either at the machine shop fabricating barrels and bankvault-benchrest actions to take his newest design or at the range. I grew up on the chicken shoot circuit with my father making expenses from guys who wanted to bet against the little kid (me). In the fall, we hunted ...a lot, and I learned to hunt with my father only giving me on cartridge and expecting me to only need one cartridge.
Today, although I still own an array of rifles and barrels, mostly break-action single shot, and can't resist the best scopes, I'm a genuine cheapskate, which has enabled me to put my funds into lands that host wildlife. When you ask me about today's hunter, the image that pops up first in my mind is a brash, loudmouthed, cigarette smoking, guy who cuts my fence, drives in with a huge jacked-up tricked-out pickup that he doesn't need and really bought only for exhibitionistic purposes. The truck is weighted down, full of the most expensive toy gear he can find; so, it cuts the deepest possible ruts through my ranch. He hunts elk with an NRA-championed banana-clipped 223 assault rifle. When he sees a herd, he lobs in the full clip from 400 yards out hoping that one, two, or three, if he's lucky will go down and he can drive out and finish them off. He must not have a license/tag because he hurriedly field butchers them with a battery-pack circular saw or chainsaw, takes only the choice cuts and leaves the rest to more attract coyotes to the ranch. If he hunts overnight, which some do using the new nightscopes that the NRA says should be legal, he makes the biggest camp he can, all without permission, and leaves as much trash and broken alcohol bottles as possible. On his drive around my property, he tosses still smoldering cigarette butts into the brush piles that I have carefully stacked into gullies to catch silt as part of my restoration efforts. On his way out, he fills the bed of his oversized truck with my cut, split, and stacked firewood as if the whole forest is not full of deadwood that he could cut for himself. On his way back home, he tosses all his open containers onto the side of the gravel road so that he won't get caught with them when he hits the pavement. Oh, by the way, when he is asked about the need for public lands, he is against them because that is what his NRA-buddies tell him; they all want people to earn their own; but, he then cusses me for not wanting him on my private land, despite his obnoxious behavior when I do let him on and despite the fact that, for the price of his pointlessly big truck, all the expensive gear the he doesn't know how to use anyway, his booze, and his cigarettes, he could have bought a ranch next door to mine.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, I'm only describing the one bad apple. Denial can be a wonderful thing.
If you are indeed real, than your note would suggest the issue (at least for you) is the NRA. As you mentioned, the bad apple scenario is the one that gets the play. Your description of "today's hunter" describes no one that I am familiar with and one has to question how he gained permission to hunt your property. I also know nothing of this NRA backed nightscope proposal and wonder if you can supply evidence. I am curious as to what the hunting community is denying?
I say put more energy in promoting the benefits of these conservation dollars and put asside your other thoughts. The men who purchase these tags are doing more for wildlife than all the anti-hunters put together.
You can shame them or call them heros. I know several of these hunter/donors and in my eyes they are heros.
Bill, it's your choice. You call them what you want.
I wonder if you have ever been to one of these auctions? Do you know any of the high bidders? I believe you stated that the better image solution would be for these fortunate and "well heeled" conservation minded folks just donate the money. As Rich stated, I know a few and they give more in one year to conservation and preservation of our hunting heritage than most will give in an entire lifetime. If the measurement is just dollars, they are real heros....but they give so much more. Let me know if you have more interest and we will send you an invite. I am confident that you will be surprised how real these men and women are. The anti-hunters only have to turn on many of the cable hunting channels to find fodder.
http://www.newwest.net/topic/article/chumming_tv_no_friend_of_hunting/C41/L41/
Consider this message as a formal invite to the Central Coast Mule Deer Foundation fundraiser on January 30, 2010 in San Jose, CA. I will pickup the dinner tab and promise you will meet many heros (including Rich from above post). I think you will be most impressed with the effort and dedication of the volunteer staff (some might be considered well heeled). "Trophy" tags from several western states will be auctioned. But I am betting, you will be more impressed with the emphasis on every young hunter in attendance - each will leave with a smile and several prizes. I am sure you have my email address so please contact me and we will get you a ticket.
RF
I would like to stop by and say how are you?. I have been trolling this place for a while now, but have not made a post.
I am from Algiers and enjoy television and xbox. I hope to get a lot out of this place .
Thank you for having me :)
Marc
I hope to learn a lot here.