Please Sign In

Please enter a valid username and password
  • Log in with Facebook
» Not a member? Take a moment to register
» Forgot Username or Password

Why Register?
Signing up could earn you gear (click here to learn how)! It also keeps offensive content off our site.

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department Seeks Corporate Sponsors

Recent Comments

Categories

Recent Posts

Archives

Syndicate

Google Reader or Homepage
Add to My Yahoo!
Add to My AOL

Field Notes
in your Inbox

Enter your email address to get our new post everyday.

July 27, 2012

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department Seeks Corporate Sponsors

--Chad Love

Would you be comfortable with a corporate sponsor for your state wildlife agency? That's what the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department is looking into...
 
From this story in the Houston Chronicle:
 
In a first for the state, the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department is seeking corporate partners to use the agency's well-known logo and brand in exchange for hard currency, the agency announced this week. The move provides a much-needed revenue stream as the department grapples with major budget cuts coupled with devastating droughts and wildfires. While other state park agencies have dabbled with similar ideas or struck corporate sponsorships deals for specific projects, industry officials believe this would be the first time a department that oversees a state's natural resources actively seeks contract-based partnerships.
 
According to the story, TPWD officials say the move is needed after the agency, which oversees more than 90 state parks and all hunting and fishing in the state, had its budget cut by $114 million last year.
 
What do you think? Are you comfortable with state agencies being "sponsored" by private corporations? Is it just plain tacky? And aren't there conflict-of-interest issues involved with such a move? Or is it just a smart business move?

Comments (9)

Top Rated
All Comments
from fezzant wrote 1 year 37 weeks ago

It could work out well for both TPWD and their sponsors, if it's well and carefully managed. However, the costs of that management would likely dig significantly into any profits realized by the agency, and, as such, that management is unlikely to be achieved.

Without that strong management of the brand, TPWD is likely to end up mixed in with organizations and products that are not appropriate, and the political fallout from this will erase all their profits and more.

Overall, this is a dangerous precedent, and I would oppose it if it were proposed in my state.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from benjaminwc wrote 1 year 37 weeks ago

I can see and understand the appeal. Having an already stretched budget infused with private funds is a tempting offer. But a corperation is going to want to make sure it gets it's moneies worth. What will that cost be I wonder? I am a huge fan of the free market, and think it will be what saves conservation in the end. But mixing public land, funded by private money is a tricky dance. I would say "move slowly, and tread lightly."

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Dcast wrote 1 year 37 weeks ago

You scream for money for conservation and then when a DNR office comes up with an idea to make money through a business it is bad? Come on already! How many hunters do you think work for "Corporations"? Conservation money comes from all walks of life, not just liberals, tree huggers, and Conservation groups. Get over it!

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from txhunter23 wrote 1 year 37 weeks ago

I understand the need for money. I was drawn in to a deer hunt in 2010 on a state park. The park officials were talking about how they were having to deal with less funding that year. Why couldn't they add a $5 tpw fee to any hunting or fishing license sold? That would have to help some.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from camperdog62 wrote 1 year 37 weeks ago

THE "CORPORATE TYPES" WILL PUT THE BRITCHES ON THE TP&W BUREAUCRATS BEFORE THEY CAN FIGURE OUT WHAT'S HAPPENED TO THEM!
POLITICAL INFLUENCE COMBINED WITH SUPERIOR NEGOTIATING SKILLS....THE COMPANIES WILL REWRITE WHATEVER RULES AND GUIDELINES THE STATE TRIES TO IMPOSE!
BAD IDEA!!

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from shutupnfish wrote 1 year 37 weeks ago

Just think, it costs in excess of $10K to deer hunt on some private land owned by corporations. That's a scary thought. Personally, I don't think it will come to this, but you never know.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Nyflyangler wrote 1 year 37 weeks ago

Typical.

Lower taxes. Replace the lost tax funds with money with corporate strings attached.

The states needs a new slogan.

Texas. We drop to our knees and fellate corporation interests on command.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from wisc14 wrote 1 year 37 weeks ago

texas is one state that will not see a penny from me. as a hunter and fisherman who uses primarily public land i just wouldn't feel welcomed in that state. sorry but i jut don't feel like paying to use private hunting land...even if i had the money to do so

0 Good Comment? | | Report

Post a Comment

from fezzant wrote 1 year 37 weeks ago

It could work out well for both TPWD and their sponsors, if it's well and carefully managed. However, the costs of that management would likely dig significantly into any profits realized by the agency, and, as such, that management is unlikely to be achieved.

Without that strong management of the brand, TPWD is likely to end up mixed in with organizations and products that are not appropriate, and the political fallout from this will erase all their profits and more.

Overall, this is a dangerous precedent, and I would oppose it if it were proposed in my state.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from benjaminwc wrote 1 year 37 weeks ago

I can see and understand the appeal. Having an already stretched budget infused with private funds is a tempting offer. But a corperation is going to want to make sure it gets it's moneies worth. What will that cost be I wonder? I am a huge fan of the free market, and think it will be what saves conservation in the end. But mixing public land, funded by private money is a tricky dance. I would say "move slowly, and tread lightly."

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Dcast wrote 1 year 37 weeks ago

You scream for money for conservation and then when a DNR office comes up with an idea to make money through a business it is bad? Come on already! How many hunters do you think work for "Corporations"? Conservation money comes from all walks of life, not just liberals, tree huggers, and Conservation groups. Get over it!

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from txhunter23 wrote 1 year 37 weeks ago

I understand the need for money. I was drawn in to a deer hunt in 2010 on a state park. The park officials were talking about how they were having to deal with less funding that year. Why couldn't they add a $5 tpw fee to any hunting or fishing license sold? That would have to help some.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from camperdog62 wrote 1 year 37 weeks ago

THE "CORPORATE TYPES" WILL PUT THE BRITCHES ON THE TP&W BUREAUCRATS BEFORE THEY CAN FIGURE OUT WHAT'S HAPPENED TO THEM!
POLITICAL INFLUENCE COMBINED WITH SUPERIOR NEGOTIATING SKILLS....THE COMPANIES WILL REWRITE WHATEVER RULES AND GUIDELINES THE STATE TRIES TO IMPOSE!
BAD IDEA!!

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from shutupnfish wrote 1 year 37 weeks ago

Just think, it costs in excess of $10K to deer hunt on some private land owned by corporations. That's a scary thought. Personally, I don't think it will come to this, but you never know.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Nyflyangler wrote 1 year 37 weeks ago

Typical.

Lower taxes. Replace the lost tax funds with money with corporate strings attached.

The states needs a new slogan.

Texas. We drop to our knees and fellate corporation interests on command.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from wisc14 wrote 1 year 37 weeks ago

texas is one state that will not see a penny from me. as a hunter and fisherman who uses primarily public land i just wouldn't feel welcomed in that state. sorry but i jut don't feel like paying to use private hunting land...even if i had the money to do so

0 Good Comment? | | Report

Post a Comment