Are Governors Tags Un-American: Redux | The MeatEater Podcast
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 8 ก.พ. 2025
- Steven Rinella talks with Gray Thornton, Brody Henderson, Phil Taylor, and Corinne Schneider.
Topics discussed: Governor’s tags vs. conservation permits; the one thing Steve doesn’t have an opinion on; the class/economic aspect; Dave Chapelle on SNL; the average male sheep off take; suspiciously philanthropic; when the four biggest sheep are killed in an avalanche; and more.
----------------
Check out the gear the MeatEater Crew uses in the field here: store.themeate...
Follow us:
Web: www.themeateat...
Instagram: / meateater
Facebook: / stevenrinellameateater
I’ve never hunted a day in my life but every Monday I look forward to this show. It baffles me how fascinated it’s made me with hunting issues. Governor’s Tags and Corner Crossing are just two examples of issues that I two examples.
Unfortunately, the Meateater crew got taken on this one. The guest, who makes his living auctioning public wildlife**, calls those who disagree or are uncertain about the "dark underbelly" of American wildlife sales envious. Cheap argument. However, he touched on the second and actual issue: how the auction system is a bastardization of the North American Wildlife Model, and it's for the reason he omits and dances past throughout this conversation.
Namely, these auction tags can be a tax write-off for the buyers because Mr. Thornton runs a 501c3 non-profit. States don't give his organization the tags because of "the party" he hosts but because of those charitable contribution deduction dollars above the license cost.
Since the North American Model of Conservation is THE compass for game laws and policy in North America, wildlife and wildlife tags cannot be sold for more than a resident or non-resident license costs. Why? Because wildlife is not legally considered a commodity (a pillar of the model). The bidder is buying a tag. If I drew the same tag, I can't sell it. So, take the New Mexico bighorn ram. The non-resident license costs everyone $3,173. Whoever paid $ 1.3 million can write off anything above the cost of that $3,173 as a charitable donation to the Wild Sheep Foundation. No matter how many banks Mr. Thornton "robbed," he would not have the taxable income to bid on a sheep tag and write that off as a charitable expense on his taxes. He ain't buying that tag, and neither are most of us. It's for those wealthy few with taxable equity to write it off.
Now, is this system right or wrong? No telling. It steers towards crooked because the model provides tax cover to the bidders while simultaneously saying that wildlife can't be considered a commodity. But things change, and the model isn't a constitution. That being said, other people's money isn't everything to everyone, but wildlife is held in the public trust, and this system has been foisted on all of us trustees.
**(Mr. Thornton's salary is the publicly available information on a non-profit website that tracks tax returns of 501c3s, like guidestar.org.)
so much second-hand embarassment listening to this one
Great episode. Its going to be hard to get away from the notion that even though all this money is pouring into wild sheep conservation, the dudes who work their fingers to the bone will never be able to hunt one, while the rich guys who can afford to buy a tag over and over again basically have free range on OUR natural resource. Sounds a lot like if they pay for it, they own it. Like Steve said, you can't argue the financial part, but the social part is an almost impossible hurdle.
Who cares. In Alaska, there are a bunch of species reserved for specific races of people and there are game animals you can't hunt at all as a non res without a guide, which costs 15-40k. There are plenty of social hurdles.
@ very valid argument. I don’t live in Alaska, so I can’t speak to that. I think people in general will always relate things to their own experience and circumstances. I think for a lot of people it’s not just the fact that they can’t do something, it’s that someone is legally able to circumnavigate hurdles that the majority of others have to deal with, simply by writing a check. It’s a much harder pill to swallow for a lot of folks. You make a good point though.
Denny Austad is a disease to the hunting world.
Not every rich person who wants a government tag will be able to get one. There are very few government tags compared to draw and every year more blue collar regular joes hunt sheep than rich elite who purchased government tags
To the victor goes the spoils
How about the states fully fund their public obligation and stop treating wildlife conservation like a business; the opportunity cost of this whole public debate, and social stress, is more expensive than simply funding these departments appropriately. From a macro perspective this isn’t a lot of money.
I think this gentleman shoots his philanthropy argument in the foot a bit when pointing out the decline in money in areas where there isnt that big ram and reenforces Steve's point that if they gave the money without the opportunity to take an animal they would be universally applauded. If they cared deeply about the resource of say Stone Sheep wouldn't they continue to give even though all the big rams died in an avalanche? They mostly care about the opportunity afforded them to harvest the biggest ram in North America and saying its a donation is a happy coincidence, also helpful as a tax write off.
If the revenue from to governor tags would result in a measurable increase in access and opportunity for the average hunter then governor tags would be justified. But they don’t and they haven’t in a very noticeable or tangible way. After all the dollars taken in a big horn sheep tag is still a once in a lifetime at best opportunity. You cannot give the wealthy an edge on obtaining an opportunity at a public resource. If a wealthy hunter wants a to help fund sheep conservation they are free to do it without pocketing a tag.
If these guys are so philanthropic, they should have no problem donating without getting anything for it.
I don't think anyone would argue that the tags raise an amazing amount of money because they obviously do. The argument is, could a raffle, or some other method, where every person that wants to at least has a chance at getting lucky, raise a similar amount of money.
Not sure how “concrete” his data is but he was saying for raffles they could get about 125-150k and those auction tags get near 350-400k and sometimes 500k. Seems pretty safe to say the auctions will/can drive a lot more revenue.
Right but it's been tried. The answer is no.
@@seanrichardson881 Definitely not saying raffles are it for sure and I wish I was smart enough to come up with the better system, but alas not the cards I was dealt.
500k is nothing to a State.
@@outdoorloser4340 your username checks out…to state agencies, 500k is a lot more than nothing and certainly more than some nonsense raffle.
39:27 wait is it envy to want the same chances at someone else to hunt the animals that belong to all of us? That's ridiculous.
Sounds like this guy had been bought and paid for. He agreed it was wrong until he started being cut in.
Agreed, this guy is protecting the Kings Deer so to speak...
Buying these tags is clearly not philanthropy, it's transactional. It's ridiculous to pretend otherwise.
I don't oppose selling these tags, necessarily, but let's not pretend it's fine ethically. We're selling our values, but that's fine if the money is worth it lol.
@@LelandHartAre the “values” we’re supposedly selling, worth anything if there aren’t any sheep left to manage? It’s easy to talk virtuously when you don’t have to make the tough decisions.
Mabe the Fed gov should stop sending 15million to Afghanistan for Contraception "rubbers" and give that money to the damn sheep conservation
Where is the data showing the additional dollars are translating to additional game numbers? Are additional biologists and trucks as stated from the funds actually resulting in better numbers of game? Just curious.
The last thing these agencies need is more money.
No they are not, and no one is going to answer that for that very reason.
Would it surprise you to know Mr. Thornton makes close to $500,000 a year as CEO of Wild Sheep Foundation? Not saying he should do it for free, but I bet $500K is a lot more than the average hunters median income.
I think that we have been bamboozled by the guest.
Here are some facts:
2014/15 Mission funding =$4.378M with Bighorn Sheep population 75k in Canada/USA.
2019/20 Mission funding =$6.247M with Bighorn Sheep population 68k in Canada/USA.
2022/23 Mission funding =$7.538M with Bighorn Sheep population 62k in Canada/USA
I understand that these facts are not cause and effect but the correlation co-efficient and regression equation do not support his argument.
I can see why Mr Thornton only talks about money raised but not sheep population numbers.
Meateater absolutely needs to get in touch with some of these guys who are actively looking to buy "Governor's Tags" each year. It would be so interesting to document the entire process, from the issuance of the tag, the raffle/purchase of the tag, and then the actual hunt that is behind the tag. It would be very interesting to go behind the scenes with some of these groups who facilitate these hunts too - so not just the guy buying the tag, but the outfitters who outfit their hunts too
Nope. It's private party. If you don't like it put a camera in your bedroom and offer the footage if someone accuses you of being too good to your wife.
@@canam111979 what are you rambling on about? Get a clue. He’s not saying each person who gets an auction tag has to have the process documented, he’s saying it would be neat to see it from beginning to end.
How does the tv show end up with all these once in a lifetime tags? They’ve got to be getting a sweetheart deal or landowner tags
The idea that sheep don’t raise enough money to support its own conservation doesn’t do it for me. They mentioned elk and mule deer raise more than enough money to support their own conservation (numbers must be good) ergo, they don’t need all the funding. There should be a surplus to go towards species that need it, like sheep. With that said, I don’t think that is how it works anyway. All monies that get poured into state game agencies from the various revenue streams go into an account that get budgeted. Sheep dollars don’t just go to sheep. It’s all about raising more money for the state game agency. Do they NEED it? Hard to say unless you look at their financial books
So it’s pretty obvious that more money isn’t leading to more Sheep. Revenue is way up and numbers of animals is down everywhere he mentioned.
How much MORE would the sheep numbers be down if they didn’t have the money? That’s the real question all the cynics aren’t asking.
@@Delmiester I think that we have been bamboozled by the guest.
Here are some facts:
2014/15 Mission funding =$4.378M with Bighorn Sheep population 75k in Canada/USA.
2019/20 Mission funding =$6.247M with Bighorn Sheep population 68k in Canada/USA.
2022/23 Mission funding =$7.538M with Bighorn Sheep population 62k in Canada/USA
I understand that these facts are not cause and effect but the correlation co-efficient and regression equation do not support his argument.
I can see why Mr Thornton only talks about money raised but not sheep population numbers.
@@cynic6964 your username checks out lol and I agree he seemed like quite the salesman, even though I’m not buying. Even though the numbers are declining, I still don’t believe, even if there is some mismanagement of funding, that doing nothing would be better. The downfall might happen much faster if there was nothing being done.
@@Delmiester That Dude should be working for USAID.
Yes, every LEGAL AMERICAN can apply for coveted tags just like every other. Public land for the win.
One class of Americans, American
People who put in for regular tags don’t get their fees back when they lose so for $100K donations do a drawing for a “super tag”.
I wish he had the preference point revenue by state for sheep. I would guess that has to be far greater than license sale revenue for sheep.
I can't wait the get the hell out of Washington! Leaving the Cascades will break my heart, but I can't take it anymore here! 36:04
Just because this man doesn't seem to know, the word "philanthropy" means love of people, not love of whatever "good cause" only theoretically benefits people in some abstract way down the line. Every large system theoretician, whether it's in social engineering or environmentalism, at minimum, claims that their big idea benefits people in some abstract way. That's all well and good, but if you can't demonstrate how that is practically the case, no one gives a shit.
Well this certainly changed my perspective. It is good to have all the information. Keep up the good work MeatEater.
Would the answer to this just be if you have a governor's tag you also have to have a raffle tag program? If 1,2,3,4 rams are "biologically insignificant" what would be the problem with adding one more tag that is exclusively for raffle?
Ok yes they raise a lot of money. I think a raffle could also raise just as much if not more if done properly. Even limiting number of tickets one person could buy. What i do not like about Governors Tags is that they come with extra perks. It implies that rules for Governors are not subject to the same rules as a common citizen and or person. Rules for thee and not for me.
He said it's an envy thing. Perhaps. It excludes the gen pop hunters. That's the rub.
Imagine if everyone had the where-with-all to opt into this. How would that work?
How does the US give billions away to foreign countries, and these dudes need F150 money?
There is certainly a quid pro quo to a donation to a hospital that includes putting your name on the building.
Steve being a guest on Kill Tony would be the greatest.
I wish australia would adopt a broad sysytem similar to the USA. could be done for both introduced game species and some sustainable natives.
"Wildlife" benefits everyone. This is true, but a large percentage of folks don't or won't understand this for complex reasons. Special interest groups skillfully selling an exclusive opportunity to the 1% is a model, but a more useful model would be all wealthy folks paying an appropriate tax, so ecology and social programs can be properly funded, without the social tension of inequality. Now that the wealthy has had a taste of this exclusive model they won't want to give it up. Climate change, loss of habitat, disease are ecological, social issues that have to be addressed, or the "canary in the coal mine," wildlife, will go away. If the canary dies it won't matter how much money you have a "virtual" experience will be the only thing left.
What has wild sheep foundation done for our sheep in Alaska?
I dont think anyone would dispute the revenue argument. Most of us realize that some of us can buy thnkgs that we cant. It starts to become an issue when these purchasss grant special treatment to the tag holder. Other have to abide by the rules and regulations surrounding these hunts, while these "special" tag holders can basically do whatever they want. If you want to buy what the rest of us cant, thats fine. They should still have to play by the same rules.
Even Animals fight when others get more and it's seen as unfair, unfair spans all. There is a known rule for this. Usually learned in college in a specific course, I just don't remember the name.
They would never produce those special tags if they weren't getting a lot of money. So it's only for rich people.
15:56 lol, i said the same thing when i saw the E.O. i dont understand the chnaging to McKinley.
Wild Sheep Foundation is a great organization. They've also sold the Jimmy John's guy like 18 wild sheep tags and I will never get one.
I feel what you're saying but I also understand that his 18 pay to play sheep are the reason they are able to issue 650 sheep tag a year
@@curtisyastic4130has there been an increase in sheep numbers since the prevalence of governors tags?
@@rileypelzer5808short answer? No. The second you tell these “philanthropists” they can only shoot yearling bucks/bulls they’d stop their “philanthropy” altogether. It’s about egos and d!ck measuring. Would I do it if I was a billionaire…100%. Doesn’t mean it’s right though
@@curtisyastic4130 Can you please explain that last part?
Sheep show was awesome this year. Didn’t see a First Lite booth, Would have been great to see their products. Next year hopefully they are there
Sitka is a huge sponsor to WSF so I doubt you see them or kuiu
I was there at the show was also surprised they didn't have a booth i was not impressed with the live drawings otherwise it was great
@@SavagelandHunting kuiu had a huge booth, stone glacier even badlands was there
Corinne needs her own show!
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the (Casey Brooks) new potential world record elk come from a Tag like this?
Wyoming has the worst hunting laws ever they won’t even let non residents hunt on federal wilderness lands without paying for a licensed guide, that should be unconstitutional
Not true. You can go with a relative
Constitution and regulations are not the same thing
@ regulations can absolutely be unconstitutional, what made you think differently ?
Love it
Just an idea but have the governors tag be for a private land hunt and incentivize the land owners to volunteer their land by giving them a property tax break for participation in the program. You still get the tag’s & benefits without slighting the blue collar hunters.
How much is sheep guy's salary?
I totally get the fact that it raises tons of money, i also understand that it doesn't seem right. Whould it be something to think about to have this be a green hunt where they could auction one off , take them hunting with a biologist and b&c scorer out with the hunter tranquilize , score it, take conservation samples , coller the sheep, take pics and have a replica mount made? I don't think many would oppose that and we would gain data from this.
My budy Mike gat a tag from Harry Reid. For a desert bighorn.
If raffles are against Washington gaming laws. How are any tag drawings legal? They are all raffles. You pay a fee to with the opportunity to win a tag. Maybe do a raffle and charge 1 dollar to the winner for the tag.
If None of the auction money, or tag money goes to workers salaries I'm All good with it. If not, different story!
1.3mil for the tag, how much money is that person putting in to the guide service.
For Mr Thorton:
Those houses in LA that burned are not a public trust resource so you use a poor analogy. If you were selling hunts of privately reared trophy Bighorn released behind a high fence to be hunted you might have a valid comparison regarding envy. Frankly I do not like your insinuations toward hunters who do not share your philosophy. Further, since you want to bring economics into arguments of equitability and fair chase, how many extra sheep does the auction tag money actually put on the mountains. You claim that it does thus you must possess the data. I would like to see a simple correlative plot of dollars raised vs animals on the mountain from year to year. I understand that it would lack cause and effect but the result may suggest an hypothesis for some future research for you to fund.
Sincerely,
William
sounds like envy and bureaucracy ruins everything
Why don’t you take the money that you get when you auction off and put it in the s&p 500
We complain (often rightly) that the rich don't pay their fair share, but then it's also a complaint when they do. Is it not fair both ways?
Ironically these tags get used as tax write offs. So seems like a double whammy.
Governor tags leverage capitalism to support conservation. That sounds pretty damn American to me 😅
In Canada OTC sheep is only for residents on that province. Non- resident Canadians need to go through an outfitter and pay there crazy fees ..
As a mid west hunter who doesn’t hunt out west or sheep anywhere, I don’t have a horse in this race but i feel this gentleman has a weak argument. Basically said people against governor are just jealous and can’t side with people that are doing better then themselfs I don’t think that’s it. Just call it what it is and say it’s about the money.
Some good points, but in the end I believe most hunters just want to see more $ raised for conservation to create better opportunities in the future. If some rich guy wants to pay $1.3M for a tag, go for it. The only problem is making sure those monies go to the right projects. Don't need to see an increase in Administrative Fees😆
I think that we have been bamboozled by the guest.
Here are some facts:
2014/15 Mission funding =$4.378M with Bighorn Sheep population 75k in Canada/USA.
2019/20 Mission funding =$6.247M with Bighorn Sheep population 68k in Canada/USA.
2022/23 Mission funding =$7.538M with Bighorn Sheep population 62k in Canada/USA
I understand that these facts are not cause and effect but the correlation co-efficient and regression equation do not support his argument.
I can see why Mr Thornton only talks about money raised but not sheep population numbers.
Are these tags able to be used as a tax write off under donations???
Depends on the 1
Across the board, the more money we can take back from rich people, to spread to the greater good for the rest of us, the better imho.
These massive amounts paid for these tags get used as tax write offs. “Philanthropy” isn’t without its benefits. Should look into what Mr. Thornton makes for a salary with the WSF. I bet it’s more than the median income of the average hunter
Howdy Steve,
I think that you have been bamboozled by your guest.
To answer my own question.
Here are some facts:
2014/15 Mission funding =$4.378M with Bighorn Sheep population 75k Canada + USA.
2019/20 Mission funding =$6.247M with Bighorn Sheep population 68k Canada + USA.
2022/23 Mission funding =$7.538M with Bighorn Sheep population 62k Canada + USA.
I understand that the facts are not cause and effect but the correlation co-efficient does not support his argument.
I can see why Mr Thornton only talks about money raised but not sheep numbers.
This could be so simple. In state and out of state tags. No raffle. FCFS. Problem solved.
Jimmy John’s ruined Arizona’s raffle system.
Abolish the practice! It's elitist af.
I hope Elon hears this.
Dude needs to get a new verbal crutch. If dude says dirty underbelly one more time I will email someone.
Dirty.........
Un
Der
BELLY
I’ve painfully listened to this whole podcast. What say you Steve? Your lips are moving, but I can’t hear what you’re saying?!
View it as we're suckering these rich guys into paying for conservation for the common folk. It's a good thing! At the cost of one tag.
Ridiculous
On principle, I am against NGO's and anything that funds them.
Yeah, fuck the Red Cross.
That’s an odd take. So you’re against Habitat for Humanity, American Heart Association, St. Jude’s, Red Cross, YMCA, etc? There’s over a million NGOs in the US and a lot of them do a lot of good for various major issues (conservation, hunger, human rights, healthcare, etc). Sure, look into them and how they use their funds before donating but to just write them all off doesn’t really make a lot of sense. Most charities are essentially the same thing as an NGO (non-profit, voluntary citizen groups that support specific issues) but with smaller scope. Are you against all local charities too(church groups, boys and girls clubs and the like)?
@@daksskier7416 Yes, against all of them.