# Conservation Permits and the Expo



## CPAjeff (Dec 20, 2014)

Let me start this off by saying, in my profession, I am supposed to analyze the data with professional skepticism and withhold the innocent/guilty judgment until all the financial information has been brought forth. With that being said, I wanted to see how big the conservation permit program was in the state and the amount of funds generated by it. For all the whining and moaning about the expo, conservation tags, etc. I figured a realistic look at the program was needed for my personal views.

The first link is a list of tags that was given to the various wildlife organizations for fund raising purposes.

https://wildlife.utah.gov/hunting/biggame/pdf/2016_conservation_permits.pdf

A total of 314 tags were given out for the various species of wildlife that are found it Utah.

The second link is a list of how much money each of those agencies made with the tags that were given them. Please see page 16.

http://wildlife.utah.gov/pdf/conservation_permit_report_2016.pdf

Here is the readers digest information from the report:

SFW was given 145 permits to auction in 2016, $1,429,825 was generated.
Mule Deer Foundation was given 63 permits to auction in 2016, $1,186,400 was generated.
FNAWS was given 14 permits to auction in 2016, $$550,800 was generated. 
RMEF was given 31 permits to auction in 2016, $354,190 was generated. 
SCI was given 24 permits to auction in 2016, $205,200 was generated.
NWTF was given 26 permits to auction in 2016, $141,675 was generated. 
UBA was given 11 permits to auction in 2016, $77,500 was generated. 
Grand total - 314 tags generated $3,945,590. I was unable to get the actual amount returned to the DNR at this point - they don't like me calling and asking a whole bunch of questions about money ... shocker! Assuming that the DNR splits the money 70/30 raised from these auctioned tags with the organization, the DNR received back $1,183,677 total, or on average, $3,769.67 from each tag.

In my research, I could not find any report about the inclusion of the expo tags program in the above list, so I excluded them from the above analysis and will show that now.

Taking the drawing odds from this link https://huntexpo.com/odds-at-drawing-an-expo-tag/ and multiplying the total number of applicants by $5, the money generated solely by the applications at the expo was $1,166,050 (233,210 applicants x $5). If the DNR received the said 30%, they received $349,815 from the applicants. Due to information provided by johnnycake below - this number should be omitted in the final calculation. The DWR will receive $1.50 from here on out from every $5 application at the hunt expo. Thanks johnnycake!

Sooooo if sportsman really think they can get the expo tag program shut down, the conservation tags decreased, and put those tags into the general drawing pool, we need to figure a way to come up with an additional $1,183,677 a year to compete with what the DNR is actually getting. On top of this, sportsman need to donate funds/time/effort to produce the same amount of wildlife projects listed in the second link above.

One last point - I have heard different stories about whether or not the 200 expo tags were taken out of the drawing and allocated to the expo. Regardless of if they were taken out, or not - they have been approved. So if the expo program gets shut down, an additional 200 tags could be placed in the general draw.

Please let me know if there are errors in the numbers analyzed. My personal view is that I am not going to beat these guys at this expo deal and it's here to stay and only increase. As far as the conservation permits are concerned, its an avenue for some to not play the waiting game and buy the tags they want on a yearly basis. This is a touchy subject for those that don't feel like they can afford the high prices of a quality tag, but for others that can afford the high prices of a quality tag - and want to pay that amount - it's great for them. I am aware of very few things in life that are fair for everyone, and when money is involved, the fairness level definitely decreases rapidly.

I love attending the expo with my son and listen to him name off all the animals and talk about hunting adventures he wants to go one when he is older - he's 3. I apply for 20 tags - that is my personal limit. I can understand why some don't want to apply for the tags or attend the expo, and I respect that decision.


----------



## Dunkem (May 8, 2012)

Good post Jeff!!


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

Good analysis. To complete the picture, here would be a few questions I would have, to assess the overall utility of the program. FWIW, I haven't been a critic of the conservation tag program. (the expo tags are another matter)


1. 1.5 million dollars seems like a lot but in the overall scheme of the UDWR budget, it isn't gigantic. One would not include the actual tag fee price in the analysis as they would be sold for the same price whether they were auctioned or distributed in the regular draw. 

Now, could the DWR raise the $1.5 million another way from us "knuckleheads" (Wade Lemons quote)? Perhaps. A $5 increase in the general deer tag fee would raise about $400000. Do the same with fishing licenses and combination licenses and you would be there or over. License and tag fee increases aren't usually popular. But would I pay it to get the DWR out of the tentacles of private entities like SFW? Perhaps. 

2. What are we getting for our investment of all this "conservation" money? If we are getting real value for it, then great. If it is getting frittered away without real tangible benefit, then that's a problem. The answer to that is beyond the scope of your analysis. I don't have the answer either. The DWR should be able to easily do so however if the program is working like it should. 

3. How much are private interests getting rich sucking off the teat of a public resource? (our tags) This seems to be a big problem with the expo tags. How much does it apply to the conservation tags? From your work, it does appear to be that there is some profiteering there too. How much is too much? That is something hunters need to decide if change is to be seen.


----------



## CPAjeff (Dec 20, 2014)

Catherder said:


> Good analysis. To complete the picture, here would be a few questions I would have, to assess the overall utility of the program. FWIW, I haven't been a critic of the conservation tag program. (the expo tags are another matter)
> 
> 1. 1.5 million dollars seems like a lot but in the overall scheme of the UDWR budget, it isn't gigantic. One would not include the actual tag fee price in the analysis as they would be sold for the same price whether they were auctioned or distributed in the regular draw.
> Great point - thanks!
> ...


Excellent, well-thought questions. I did a little more research and here's what I came up with in response to your points - what if the DNR increased the application fee to $15 instead of the $10 per species in the limited entry & OIAL draw? Here are the numbers based off the 2016 data per species:

Deer - 4,234 resident applications 9,094 nonresident applications 
Elk - 11,315 resident applications 11,340 nonresident applications
Antelope - 628 resident applications 5,407 nonresident applications
Moose - 8,885 resident applications 5,247 nonresident applications
Desert Sheep - 1,990 resident applications 4,615 nonresident applications
Rocky Mtn Sheep - 1,427 resident applications 4,556 nonresident applications
Mountain Goat - 1,852 resident applications 4,181 nonresident applications

Grand total - 30,331 resident applications 44,440 nonresident applications or 74,771 total resident and nonresident applications. If the DNR increased the application fee from $10 to $15 the difference would be $373,885. If they increased it to $20, the difference would be $747,710. Now, I understand that an increased application fee would cause some residents and nonresidents to not apply, but I believe this number is immaterial to the analysis. If they also increased the general deer fee by $5, there is another $400,000 (like you said), and increasing the general elk fee by $5, also provides another $100,000 figuring that a total of 20,000 tags were sold to archery, rifle, and muzzleloader hunters. New grand total with all the increases $373,885 ($5 increase on le applications) + $400,000 ($5 increase on general deer tags) + $100,000 ($5 increase on general bull elk tags) = $873,885.


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

The $5 application fee for the expo tags does not go to the DWR. I believe the DWR now gets $1.50 per app. This was just one of the many points of contention between the RMEF and SFW proposals, as RMEF proposed a return of $5 per app to the DWR.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

My biggest problem is not that the expo and conservation permits exhist, my problem is the entity that receives the majority of them is not the most dedicated organization to the average hunter who funds a larger majority than $1.5 million. My problem is RMEF was obviously the more beneficial organization to our wildlife and to the state DWR. The state fdoesnt seem to care about the money it's losing off app fees for these tags or the 10% off conservation tags. RMEF essentially offered 100% of all money raised off all tags to go back to the state. This has been hashed out a lot, but most people's biggest issue is the fact one organization is shown favoritism and exposes cronyism within our government that gives the finger to the average sportsmen and public by not getting as much as possible out of a public resource.


----------



## CPAjeff (Dec 20, 2014)

johnnycake said:


> The $5 application fee for the expo tags does not go to the DWR. I believe the DWR now gets $1.50 per app. This was just one of the many points of contention between the RMEF and SFW proposals, as RMEF proposed a return of $5 per app to the DWR.


Thanks for pointing that out!


----------



## CPAjeff (Dec 20, 2014)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> My biggest problem is not that the expo and conservation permits exhist, my problem is the entity that receives the majority of them is not the most dedicated organization to the average hunter who funds a larger majority than $1.5 million. My problem is RMEF was obviously the more beneficial organization to our wildlife and to the state DWR. The state fdoesnt seem to care about the money it's losing off app fees for these tags or the 10% off conservation tags. RMEF essentially offered 100% of all money raised off all tags to go back to the state. This has been hashed out a lot, but most people's biggest issue is the fact one organization is shown favoritism and exposes cronyism within our government that gives the finger to the average sportsmen and public by not getting as much as possible out of a public resource.


So the DWR receives back only 10% of the money generated by the conversation tags? That throws the original monetary analysis off. I guess I should have known better than talking to a person "in the know" the SLC office about conservation tags.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

CPAjeff said:


> So the DWR receives back only 10% of the money generated by the conversation tags? That throws the original monetary analysis off. I guess I should have known better than talking to a person "in the know" the SLC office about conservation tags.


No, sorry I should have phrased that differently. The DWR receives 30%, the conservation organizations retains 60% to use on DWR approved projects and 10% to keep and use as they please. Now 10% doesn't seem like a ton, but when you're selling a $400,000 antelope island tag, it is a lot of money, especially when you had the chance to choose an organization who committed to giving you 100% back. On the app fees, getting all $5 back an application rather than the $1.50 SFW is giving ends in a huge loss of what were offered proceeds off public permits. I don't hate the fact these permits are there, I hate the fact there is obvious cronyism occurring and the average sportsmen is not getting all the money they could have off these permits. RMEF tried to right this wrong, and SFW and the DWR just doubled down on their crony relationship.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

CPAjeff said:


> Excellent, well-thought questions. I did a little more research and here's what I came up with in response to your points - what if the DNR increased the application fee to $15 instead of the $10 per species in the limited entry & OIAL draw? Here are the numbers based off the 2016 data per species:
> 
> Deer - 4,234 resident applications 9,094 nonresident applications
> Elk - 11,315 resident applications 11,340 nonresident applications
> ...


Do you have the statistics for how many fishing, hunting, and combination *licenses* were sold last year?


----------



## CPAjeff (Dec 20, 2014)

Catherder said:


> Do you have the statistics for how many fishing, hunting, and combination *licenses* were sold last year?


I do not. I also don't have the exact number of general elk tags sold. I know 29,000 were allocated for general rifle and general muzzleloader - but the archery general elk are unlimited, and I couldn't get a hard number in that either. The next step in the increase of fees could be put on the antlerless tags - $5 more per application and $5 or $10 per tag could really add up.


----------



## CPAjeff (Dec 20, 2014)

Here is the 2016 antlerless draw info;

Deer - 5,153 resident applications and 283 nonresident applications 685 tags available
Elk - 37,023 resident applications and 1,846 nonresident applications 12,387 tags available
Antelope - 4,984 resident applications and 144 nonresident applications 681 tags available
Moose - 2,857 resident applications and 92 nonresident applications 20 tags available

The grand total of applications is 50,017 residents and 2,365 nonresidents for a total of 13,773 tags available. If applications increased by $5 this would add $261,910 (52,382 applications x $5) and if tag fees increased $10, this would add $137,730 for a grand total of $399,640. This figure does not account for the additional cow elk tags sold as private land tags and control tags. 

One thing I am starting to see is that this is less and less about money and the DWR, but it's about who has their hands in whose pockets. I still find it crazy hard to believe that RMEF lost the bid for the contract to SFW.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

CPAjeff said:


> I do not.


 No problem. However, since one is required to have a license to apply for any big game tag, and fishing is notably more popular than hunting statewide, the number would probably be in the ballpark of 200000 or so. A small rate increase could easily substitute the funds in question.

I suppose the points I would make are these.

1. The DWR budget would not come crashing to earth if the conservation tags were eliminated and alternative revenue could easily be found. (not necessarily saying they should change.)

2. Those that are dislocating their shoulders by patting themselves on the back for what the conservation tag program does are overstating their position. Tangible proof of efficacy of the money spent should be demanded by the public.

3. There have been 2 scandals that have put the DWR in an extremely negative light recently. (The expo tag renewal and the poached Nebo ram) The public should demand an increased transparency into the program and especially where ALL the money is going and also the results of these conservation projects. Currently, my trust of DWR leadership is at a very low level and I don't think I'm alone.


----------



## MuscleWhitefish (Jan 13, 2015)

If Utah needs the money for conservation, then how do states like Wyoming, Colorado, Idaho, and Montana manage with more game ? 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## OriginalOscar (Sep 5, 2016)

Catherder said:


> Do you have the statistics for how many fishing, hunting, and combination *licenses* were sold last year?


2015 - Deer 86,405 + Elk 71,175 = 157,580 x $5 increase = $787,900
Link https://wildlife.utah.gov/hunting/biggame/pdf/annual_reports/15_bg_report.pdf

I couldn't find the number of fishing licenses but I would guess it's over 200,000.

Unfortunately it's not about money. The total ROI would need to consider coordinated or independent programs and projects each of the conservation organizations contribute.

I would like to see the state require an annual report for each organization showing what they contribute and the valuation.


----------

