auction tags?

[realunlucky]

Using California in 2013 as an example, that doesn't get you there (all else equal). You would need to roughly triple application fees to get the desired result, but that (unreasonably) assumes that would not diminished application numbers. Raffles historically have not earned as much as auction tags either. Other ideas? Or is the notion that there are better ways to generate equivalent proceeds pie in the sky?

Matt I'm not familiar with how california funds its department but I'm sure there is money out there due to mismanaged funds. What happens when this godsend of money isn't enough? Is the answer another auction tag? I do agree these tags currently offer the easiest way to raise funds, I just don't see it as a long term fix

 

[William Hanson (live2hunt)]

Maybe all tags should be auction that would raise serious cash and be the fairest way

Sure why not we're already permitting class distinction. As I said in an earlier post let's crown Obama king while we're at it and then he can allow whatever elite few aristocrats he chooses hunt the kings land and perhaps grace us lesser folks the privilege to look upon their trophies.

 

[jmez]

No that wasn't the point at all. That's irrational and not even close to what I said. Try again

I said that. It was a statement.

 

[realunlucky]

I dont like everything about these auctions but i think the good outweighs the bad. JMHO

I believe this is argument in a nutshell. Whether you believe the good out weights the bad and will continue to

 

[MattB]

OK then triple it or quadruple it, you're still way below non resident fees for some other states. Subsidize the loss in applicants (which there won't be) with raffles. Nothing pie in the sky

The tags fees are diminimus in the equation (~$8,000/yr.), the relevant aspect is the application fee (~$110,000/yr.). Do you have access to data from studies on the demand elasticity of price changes on hunting-related fees, or are you merely assuming that there wouldn't be any loss in the number of applicants?

That still ignores the fact that tag and application fees often fund seperate activities and doing what you propose wouldn't achieve the desired effect. In this day and age of cash-strapped states, opening up the legislation that drives how such funds are allocated could easily work against sportsmen and wildlife rather than for (i.e. diverting some portion of wildlife funds into the general fund or similiar).

It is interesting that your distaste for what 1 or 2 people earn the ability to do each year would be worth all that.

 

[William Hanson (live2hunt)]

I said that. It was a statement.

Yes you did say that and you are correct it was a statement, it was a statement in response to my comment on the cost of stone sheep being more fair because at least all things are equal. It was a sarcastic extreme misrepresentation of my position, so I responded correcting that.

 

[realunlucky]

Sure why not we're already permitting class distinction. As I said in an earlier post let's crown Obama king while we're at it and then he can allow whatever elite few aristocrats he chooses hunt the kings land and perhaps grace us lesser folks the privilege to look upon their trophies.

You always add just alittle craziness to your arguments.

 

[MattB]

Matt I'm not familiar with how california funds its department but I'm sure there is money out there due to mismanaged funds. What happens when this godsend of money isn't enough? Is the answer another auction tag? I do agree these tags currently offer the easiest way to raise funds, I just don't see it as a long term fix

The sheep auction tag funds are segregated and can only be used by the sheep program for certain purposes. There is public oversight as to how the funds are spent. There is a very specific mechanism in the legislation that dictates the availability of tags for auction/raffle which is tied to the number of draw tags available, and the department does not have the ability to unilaterally modify the legislation to bring about more auction tags. Many states have similar programs and have for a long time, and (Utah aside - no offense intended, but I think you know what I am talking about) these programs have not become the self-feeding monsters that many detractors suggest they could.

More and more, it seems internet discussions on the subject become an opportunity for thinly veiled classist rants than honest debates about what is best for wildlife conservation and for sportsmen in general (general comment, not in response to the quote above).

 

[realunlucky]

Sheep are a success story because of outside funds. I hope it continues it truly takes combined efforts of dedicated sportsmen. I do believe there are different/ better ways to reach the same goals. I agree rocking the boat could have side effects that wouldn't be easy over come in the foreseeable future. I wish internet debates had more logic and less passion but also know you can type one thing hit send and reread it after its posted and understand its not relaying your message as you had intended.

 

[William Hanson (live2hunt)]

Matt you make some valid points. Yes my argument is largely "classist" because that is what hunting becomes when this type of elite advantage is promoted. Your points are complicated and get into politics more than hunting. Hunters do need more of an active say in where money comes from and what it benefits. Yes government is corrupt and has the ability to channel fund elsewhere other than its intended purpose (look at social security) but private charity groups have the same ability. There needs to be absolute transparency either way.

 

[William Hanson (live2hunt)]

You always add just alittle craziness to your arguments.

Craziness in arguments sometimes drives the point better

 

[Hoot]

Craziness in arguments sometimes drives the point better

Now you're saying you're against class distinction, I thought this wasn't about class warfare? You sure you know where you stand?

 

[William Hanson (live2hunt)]

Now you're saying you're against class distinction, I thought this wasn't about class warfare? You sure you know where you stand?

I do know where I stand. My argument has been consistent throughout this conversation. Yours on the other hand borderlines socialist at times while indicating that you think liberal thinking is flawed, where do you stand?

 

[MattB]

Matt you make some valid points. Yes my argument is largely "classist" because that is what hunting becomes when this type of elite advantage is promoted.

For poops and grins, I pulled out my CA big game hunting digests for the last 15 years. In large part because of the positive impact of auction tags, we have had approximately 66 public draw hunters from 2004 to 2013 draw sheep tags in CA that otherwise would not have been able to. These are guys like you and me, the vast majority of which who probably could not afford to buy a hunt for desert bighorn. During that time, I believe that there were 15 auction tags and 2 raffle tags issued.

I guess this debate comes down to what folks will focus on: Are you of the mind to be angry about the 15 tags that were taken out of the draw and sold to the highest bidder? Or are you appreciative for the additional 68 draw tags that were made available to average guys in large part due to the funds that were raised from the auction and raffle tags - not to mention the survey work, disease studies, new/refurbished drinkers, translocations, etc.?

 

[Hoot]

You crack me up!

The reality is that auction tags make up less than one percent of total tags for most states. The tags have proven to be a positive for generating funds for conservation. If auction tags start increasing in percentage against "normal" tags, I'll be right there with the opponents of this fundraising method.

Your arguments against them have remained consistent in that they follow the logic of the liberal left. This is the mindset that has propelled this country into a downward spiral in my opinion. You are making demons of those who have more than you, even though you have the same opportunity that they do. Instead of seeking to better your personal circumstance to get more for yourself, you seek to take more from them. This country provides equal opportunity, not equal outcome. There is a difference!

I'll say it again, in hopes that it resonates with some who will read it...

Equal opportunity, not equal outcome.

 

[William Hanson (live2hunt)]

You crack me up!

The reality is that auction tags make up less than one percent of total tags for most states. The tags have proven to be a positive for generating funds for conservation. If auction tags start increasing in percentage against "normal" tags, I'll be right there with the opponents of this fundraising method.

Your arguments against them have remained consistent in that they follow the logic of the liberal left. This is the mindset that has propelled this country into a downward spiral in my opinion. You are making demons of those who have more than you, even though you have the same opportunity that they do. Instead of seeking to better your personal circumstance to get more for yourself, you seek to take more from them. This country provides equal opportunity, not equal outcome. There is a difference!

I'll say it again, in hopes that it resonates with some who will read it...

Equal opportunity, not equal outcome.

Seriously? I don't think you understand what delineates the left from the right politically. What you are promoting is that the rich bare the Lion's share of the cost for conservation, take from the rich and give to the poor (minus the theft) if you will. I don't wish to take anything for the rich that wouldn't be equally required of the poor. You are essentially promoting Obamacare for tags, shall we call it the affordable tag act? You wish for the 1% to foot the bill for the rest of us, huh sound familiar, it's obamanomics 101. I am not at all making demons of the rich, to the contrary I appreciate the generosity of those that donate to help conservation. My issue with this is the mentality that the financial and/or social elite get to live be a separate set of rules because of their generosity. How about this let's auction get out of jail free cards that let you off the hook for any crime, all have to do is win the auction, and all of the proceeds go toward curing cancer in children. Would the ends justify the means in that case? Or my earlier analogy, does a rich man get to drive his Ferrari 150 mph down the highway just because he donated to improve it? You have no problem taking rich peoples money and giving them special treatment/opportunities in hunting because of their money, what about these other aspects of life? Money can buy you nice things and make it so you don't have to work as hard and take you places and just generally make life easier, I am happy for the people who have this, what is wrong is when rules/laws change for people because of money and/or social status. Nobody likes that Congress excluded themselves from obamacare but congress is a far smaller percentage of the American people than the percentage of rich people with auctioned tags are to normal tags, yet its a similar different set of rules because they are the elite. We don't have nobility here so everyone should be bound by the same rules.

 

[Jtelarkin08]

If you have a problem with auction tags it is only fueled by jealousy and a sense of entitlement. People who are successful are obviously going to have more opportunities in life. That is the way it is and that is the way that it should be. Liberals have no common sense to realize that.

 

[William Hanson (live2hunt)]

For poops and grins, I pulled out my CA big game hunting digests for the last 15 years. In large part because of the positive impact of auction tags, we have had approximately 66 public draw hunters from 2004 to 2013 draw sheep tags in CA that otherwise would not have been able to. These are guys like you and me, the vast majority of which who probably could not afford to buy a hunt for desert bighorn. During that time, I believe that there were 15 auction tags and 2 raffle tags issued.

I guess this debate comes down to what folks will focus on: Are you of the mind to be angry about the 15 tags that were taken out of the draw and sold to the highest bidder? Or are you appreciative for the additional 68 draw tags that were made available to average guys in large part due to the funds that were raised from the auction and raffle tags - not to mention the survey work, disease studies, new/refurbished drinkers, translocations, etc.?

California grossly mismanages funds. I don't know if its the case anymore, but they were the 3rd largest economy in the world. Yet in spite of that they are bankrupt, why? Largely because voters their don't think of the consequences of their actions. I understand why you are using it as an example but California really is nothing like the rest of the country conservation or otherwise. You could sit on Hollywood blvd with a sign saying save the sheep and raise a hundred grand in a week but no one will really care and there in lies the problem, if you could make people get their heads out of their butts and actually make choices based on conscientious decision making there would be no issue as to whether or not the sheep conservation was properly funded there. Of course then you'd have a much larger fight with the anti hunting lobbyists there.

 

[William Hanson (live2hunt)]

If you have a problem with auction tags it is only fueled by jealousy and a sense of entitlement. People who are successful are obviously going to have more opportunities in life. That is the way it is and that is the way that it should be. Liberals have no common sense to realize that.

Perhaps you should read the rest of the comments before making uneducated comments yourself. I am not a liberal nor do I feel entitled to anything.

 

[Jtelarkin08]

Perhaps you should read the rest of the comments before making uneducated comments yourself. I am not a liberal nor do I feel entitled to anything.

Perhaps you should realize i was making a general statement and not even talking about you. Nothing uneducated about my answer bc I could really give a shit what your feelings are. I was just stating my opinion.