auction tags?

[realunlucky]

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.

that assumes that no changes would had been made in those 9 years

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.?

I don't think it's that straight forward. I'm not naive enough to believe the only way to raise money is to hope a couple ultra wealthy guys a year are generous enough to fund the projects for one more year. what about a self sustaining plan?

 

[realunlucky]

Not sure why it double quoted Matt.

 

[realunlucky]

Lets agree that auction tags and the money they raise are more beneficial than before these tags. Fact. Are these the only way no but they have proved the easiest. Lets also understand that not all money raised goes to sheep. Most times the state takes a percentage to use for general enhancement the largest percentage goes to fund projects directly impacting sheep most often overseen by an out side group and finally the conversation group will keep an commission to use for themselves as administrative purposes. We have to admit there was mismanaged funds in the legal battle between orvis and wsf which I believe one side is still paying penalties

 

[realunlucky]

I can see some very good points of this system but also some of the short comings. I have to get some work done today and this debate is in turning into left vs right which I don't believe it is. I hope we never stop looking for the best way to fund the enhancing of habitats for all species.Just because it's always been done one way or a certain way works ok right now doesn't mean it always will

 

[William Hanson (live2hunt)]

I will agree with that realunlucky.

 

[William Hanson (live2hunt)]

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.

Really? Because throughout this discussion I have been the main one opposed to auction tags with realunlucky being opposed as well. Your post immediately followed mine flaming any opposition to auctioned tags as jealousy and a feeling of entitlement. Then to top it off you make another inflammatory remark and seemingly indicate that I or anyone who opposes auctioned tags is a liberal. To say that it was a general statement and not directed at anyone, come on really?

 

[MattB]

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.

There is a very important distinction that you are overlooking: this is not taking, as auctions are by their nature voluntary. Auction tags, appropriately administered, provide a win-win-win for the winning bidder, for hunters who participate in the public draw, and most importantly for wildlife. Your comparison to Obamacare is inaccurate.

California grossly mismanages funds.

Unless you have specifics in regards to the use of auction tag proceeds, that is a straw man argument because it has no bearing as to the administration of auction tag 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?

California is not bankrupt, nor has it been. Your statement is simply untrue.

I understand why you are using it as an example but California really is nothing like the rest of the country conservation or otherwise.

California's sheep conservation efforts are largely disconnected from the politics of the state (thankfully), and have *very* strong similarities to other states that have similar efforts. Asserting otherwise doesn't make it so.

This is quickly devolving into a situation where you are posting unsupported assertions and "untruths" to prop up your position. Rokslide is one of the few hunting web sites that is largely devoid of that sort of content - let's keep it that way.

 

[MattB]

that assumes that no changes would had been made in those 9 years

Correct, and to my knowledge no changes would have been made during those 9 years but for funds that were used to pay for herd surveys over multiple years which allowed the state to open new hunt units and increase overall tag numbers. Again, the DF&G sheep program did not have the funds in its normal operating budget to do this, so outside funds were necessary and the result was an increase in public draw tags.

I don't think it's that straight forward. I'm not naive enough to believe the only way to raise money is to hope a couple ultra wealthy guys a year are generous enough to fund the projects for one more year. what about a self sustaining plan?

It isn't that straight forward, but I previously asked folks to provide ideas as to how to provide a similar level of funding in a manner deemed to be more equitable and no reasonable solutions were offered. My personal opinion is that the status quo works very well, and that trying to change it is fraught with risk. We already have experienced that raffles do not raise as much funds as auction tags, and they bear much greater marketing expense. It is easy to point fault with the status quo, but I have yet to see anyone come up with a thoughful/reasonable/workable alternative.

 

[MattB]

Lets also understand that not all money raised goes to sheep. Most times the state takes a percentage to use for general enhancement the largest percentage goes to fund projects directly impacting sheep most often overseen by an out side group and finally the conversation group will keep an commission to use for themselves as administrative purposes.

Historically the legislation that provided for the auction tags did not allow the groups that auctioned its tags to recoup marketing expenses associated with auctioning the tag, although I believe that may have changed recently. I understand that 100% of the proceeds that go to the state from auction tags go to a specific fund for sheep, although other states may administer this differently.

We have to admit there was mismanaged funds in the legal battle between orvis and wsf which I believe one side is still paying penalties

Grand Slam Ovis and FNAWS (now WSF) were in a very regrettable lawsuit. Those are both independent groups and quite frankly I am not sure how/if that ties into this discussion.

 

[realunlucky]

Are those not the groups that administer the auctions?

 

[William Hanson (live2hunt)]

There is a very important distinction that you are overlooking: this is not taking, as auctions are by their nature voluntary. Auction tags, appropriately administered, provide a win-win-win for the winning bidder, for hunters who participate in the public draw, and most importantly for wildlife. Your comparison to Obamacare is inaccurate.



Unless you have specifics in regards to the use of auction tag proceeds, that is a straw man argument because it has no bearing as to the administration of auction tag funds.



California is not bankrupt, nor has it been. Your statement is simply untrue.



California's sheep conservation efforts are largely disconnected from the politics of the state (thankfully), and have *very* strong similarities to other states that have similar efforts. Asserting otherwise doesn't make it so.

This is quickly devolving into a situation where you are posting unsupported assertions and "untruths" to prop up your position. Rokslide is one of the few hunting web sites that is largely devoid of that sort of content - let's keep it that way.

There is a very important distinction that you are overlooking: this is not taking, as auctions are by their nature voluntary. Auction tags, appropriately administered, provide a win-win-win for the winning bidder, for hunters who participate in the public draw, and most importantly for wildlife. Your comparison to Obamacare is inaccurate.



Unless you have specifics in regards to the use of auction tag proceeds, that is a straw man argument because it has no bearing as to the administration of auction tag funds.



California is not bankrupt, nor has it been. Your statement is simply untrue.



California's sheep conservation efforts are largely disconnected from the politics of the state (thankfully), and have *very* strong similarities to other states that have similar efforts. Asserting otherwise doesn't make it so.

This is quickly devolving into a situation where you are posting unsupported assertions and "untruths" to prop up your position. Rokslide is one of the few hunting web sites that is largely devoid of that sort of content - let's keep it that way.

I agree the rich are not have there money taken from them in that its not obligatory, my comparison was drawn in the reality that this type of fundraising for conservation depends on the wealthy supporting the bulk of the cost like obamacare.

The gross mismanagement of funds was not referring to auction tags but rather state funds in general. This is applicable because California has a higher population than most states and higher tax revenues than most states so it shouldnt be so difficult to find more than enough funds to dedicate to sheep.

Bankrupt I suppose was an exaggerated term however in 2009 California asked for federal bailout, in 2011-12 cities all over the state filed bankruptcy and still may be I have not checked recently. I can provide links if you like. So did California actually file bankruptcy, no, you are correct.

I say that California is not like other states in that the percentage of hunters is quite a bit lower than most other states except perhaps NY and AZ (I haven't checked them), with such a low percentage of hunters they have far less influence politically so their concerns take a back burner. In contrast take Missouri for example, we have a huge support for hunters and a conservation department to prove it.

I am not simply an outsider looking at California with contempt, I lived there for 28 years. I can tell you from personal experience that the vast majority there do not view hunters concerns with any importance.

 

[MattB]

In years past CA WSF and the national chapter of WFS administered the CA sheep auction tags, but until recently (I *believe* this changed 1-2 years ago to permit a 5% retention to cover marketing costs) 100% of the proceeds from the tag sale went to the state. Hence, I am not sure why it would be topical?

 

[Jtelarkin08]

Really? Because throughout this discussion I have been the main one opposed to auction tags with realunlucky being opposed as well. Your post immediately followed mine flaming any opposition to auctioned tags as jealousy and a feeling of entitlement. Then to top it off you make another inflammatory remark and seemingly indicate that I or anyone who opposes auctioned tags is a liberal. To say that it was a general statement and not directed at anyone, come on really?

Well the fact that i only read about the first page of post and didnt waste my time reading all of the crap that you have posted on this thread.. Yes it was not directed to you.. I could care less who is against it or for it.> I posted my opinion..

 

[tstowater]

From the statement by the OP about a couple auction tags and query about what other tags have brought, this thread has taken quite a twist. I frankly have had a difficult time understanding some of the positions taken by some of the participants unless they are either misguided or jealous or of questionable intelligence. On the other hand, it appears that some of the participants have crawled out of their cave and have seen the real world and understands that it isn't perfect (nor will it ever be) and that the auction tags do serve a useful purpose. I am glad that there are people who can and will spend ridiculous amount to have a chance to hunt a particular animal and spend an equal amount of ridiculous money to have someone camp with the animal until the season opens. The fact that these people have chosen to pay the price to play the game has allowed many of the rest of us mere mortals the opportunity to hunt the sheep/moose/goats, etc that otherwise would not have had been budgeted for in the various fish and game departments to be protected or enhanced. I applaud the various visionaries that deemed that hunting by a few could be a way to increase the hunting opportunities of the masses.

I think this issue has been sufficiently beat to death. If someone wants to argue with me about this, I would either ask the moderators to close the thread or I will not be really nice the next time as I have several other things to say but have chosen to keep this positive and productive.

 

[MattB]

I agree the rich are not have there money taken from them in that its not obligatory, my comparison was drawn in the reality that this type of fundraising for conservation depends on the wealthy supporting the bulk of the cost like obamacare.

The success of Obamacare is primarily predicated on the participation rate of the young and healthy (not the rich) who are to susidize the old/unhealthy, so I am not sure how that is even relevant. In terms of value for contribution, auction tag systems and Obamacare are almost diametrically opposed as the auction tag buyer get the value for their expenditure whereas Obamacare's viability is predicated upon a large percentage of the enrollies (the 18-34 crowd) buy but not using insurance to subsidize those who consume more than their premiums will cover (the old and sick).

http://www.latimes.com/nation/polit...macare-20140113,0,1592963.story#axzz2rpGEiYL3

The gross mismanagement of funds was not referring to auction tags but rather state funds in general. This is applicable because California has a higher population than most states and higher tax revenues than most states so it shouldnt be so difficult to find more than enough funds to dedicate to sheep.

Where does the fact that CA has highest expenditures because it has the *highest* population of any state come into your analysis? Your analysis that ignores 1/2 the equation does not constitute gross mismanagement. CA has its financial issues, but we also have a current budget surplus whihc not many states can claim.

Bankrupt I suppose was an exaggerated term however in 2009 California asked for federal bailout, in 2011-12 cities all over the state filed bankruptcy and still may be I have not checked recently. I can provide links if you like. So did California actually file bankruptcy, no, you are correct.

Please provide the links, I believe your are exaggerating again. Stockton, Vallejo and Mammoth Lakes (due to a real estate developer lawsuit) are the 3 municipal bankruptcies I am familiar with during that timeframe.

 

[realunlucky]

Sent you a pm

 

[William Hanson (live2hunt)]

I'll address this when I get to a desktop if this thread hasn't been removed or turned into a thread where we post our opinions but no one is allowed to contradict them or we'll get mean or tell on you, like apparently some want. Smh.

Matt I sent you a PM

 

[Ryan Avery]

Why would we remove it... It's right on track with what the OP started with. Nope, you guys are screwing this goat RS is simply hold the head ! Just keep it civil.

 

[William Hanson (live2hunt)]

Why would we remove it... It's right on track with what the OP started with. Nope, you guys are screwing this goat RS is simply hold the head ! Just keep it civil.

Lol that was in response to an earlier post. Thanks for helping a brotha and holding the head.

 

[William Hanson (live2hunt)]

The success of Obamacare is primarily predicated on the participation rate of the young and healthy (not the rich) who are to susidize the old/unhealthy, so I am not sure how that is even relevant. In terms of value for contribution, auction tag systems and Obamacare are almost diametrically opposed as the auction tag buyer get the value for their expenditure whereas Obamacare's viability is predicated upon a large percentage of the enrollies (the 18-34 crowd) buy but not using insurance to subsidize those who consume more than their premiums will cover (the old and sick).

http://www.latimes.com/nation/polit...macare-20140113,0,1592963.story#axzz2rpGEiYL3



Where does the fact that CA has highest expenditures because it has the *highest* population of any state come into your analysis? Your analysis that ignores 1/2 the equation does not constitute gross mismanagement. CA has its financial issues, but we also have a current budget surplus whihc not many states can claim.



Please provide the links, I believe your are exaggerating again. Stockton, Vallejo and Mammoth Lakes (due to a real estate developer lawsuit) are the 3 municipal bankruptcies I am familiar with during that timeframe.

Also San Bernadino. I don't know if compton or LA ever went through with bankruptcy but they were considering it. I realize that its not a huge percentage of cities but enough for concern particularly considering the size of san bernadino and stockton.
http://reason.com/archives/2012/07/20/california-goes-bankrupt
Even California attorney general considered the state bankrupt whether it went through the legal procedure is a different story.
http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/california-bankrupt
here's the bailout link.
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles...21947.html?mod=WSJ_WSJ_US_PoliticsNCampaign_2

these are literally the first links I looked at I'm sure I can find more if you like.