NV auction tags conflict? NDOW chairman is in the pic? Raffle these tags, not auction!

[MuleyFever]

Whether opportunity increased depends on the state and the species. Here in CA we have opened a number of new sheep units over the past ~15 years which has in fact expanded opportunity.

Quick math question - if you 1) auction a tag for $300K and the entity that held and marketed the tag gets 5% of the proceeds to cover costs or 2) raffle a tag and it raises $100K, all of which goes to the state - which is the better economic option?

If you believe increased revenue is additive, you still can add $1 to every license. If you don’t, the point is moot.

- the ignorant guy

Can you prove carving out tags for the rich was the factor that increased those opportunities? Or even that there are more tags? More units may not mean more tags. Utah Mt goat is an example of that.

Your last point is, well, not a point at all. The fact we can add a buck or two and give everyone that applies a chance and still make the same money is proof we don't need auction tags. If you are so sure added money makes such a difference then shouldn't a larger number of tags be auctioned? Maybe just go all auction?

This thread is also not about just sheep. Lots of lost opportunity across the west. How have auction tags increased opportunity across the board?

I'm confused now on who is ignorant.

 

[Blowdowner]

The money should used to buy land that is valuable habitat and accessible to hunters only.

 

[mustelid_master]

.

 

[Archer86]

With a little effort the places auctioning tags could raffles of the the tags and produce as much money. its just takes less effort to get a couple rich guys bidding on these auction tags. Auction tags should be gone.

 

[Andrew12gauge]

It seems to me there are a lot of similarities between public schools and wildlife departments, both continue to claim that more money will solve all of their issues, both continue to get more money, both continue to offer diminished returns.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ladogg411]

I’d be more suspicious if he was in a pic with a raffle tag winner.

For sure!

And did that commission chairman actually make money as a guide that day? I cannot say. But he has been a guide for years.

A commissioner who plays a part in authorizing an auction tag is showing poor judgment by participating in the auction hunt.

And if a commissioner is on the hunt, don't let anyone take a picture of you next to the auction tag purchaser (friend, whatever) and the auction ram.

Raffle! Not Auction!

 

[Split toe]

Of the 4 guys in the disgusting picture, which one are you?

Too much to ask that a political appointee (commissioner) should not be too cozy with the auction tag he authorized?

Who cares, its not a raffle, it is an auction. The highest bidder won, not sure I see a conflict. Now if it was a raffle and his best friend won the random raffle, then yes, that would raise some eyebrows.

 

[WCB]

Unless there is a rider on the auction claiming the winner has to use his guide services and guide fees are not included. Not sure the issue?

 

[NVUplandHunter]

I dont necessarily agree with OP but who cares? Well, animals are held in trust by the state for the people of that state. That means that everyone in that state has a vested interest in those animals. These tags take an animal from everyone in that state and give it to one person and that person only got that because of their ability to pay for it. In these cases, large sums of money.

To put this in context that more people deal with. This is the equivalent of the State using tax payer funds to build a road, then closing the road to anyone that has a tax bracket lower than X and saying these people pay more in taxes, therefore they are more deserving of using this road.

Pay to play works when its private entity/person to private entity/person. It does not work when its private entity/person to public entity/person.

you have every opportunity to cast your hat in the pot just like everyone else. so im curious how you can make these statements? did someone say you can only join into an auction hunt if you make a certain amount of money every year? Or is it that you think its not fair because other people have more money to throw into the pot than you?

your example of context is vastly wrong and backwards. If you dont want to play in the auction you have no penalty. your example could be applied for every single application there is. and what about the people who cant afford the tag fees? are they in the same boat you claim?

its a auction and there will always be people with more money than you or I. no need to cry over it especially when you can apply to the main draw and have the same odds as everyone else.

 

[CorbLand]

you have every opportunity to cast your hat in the pot just like everyone else. so im curious how you can make these statements? did someone say you can only join into an auction hunt if you make a certain amount of money every year? Or is it that you think its not fair because other people have more money to throw into the pot than you?

your example of context is vastly wrong and backwards. If you dont want to play in the auction you have no penalty. your example could be applied for every single application there is. and what about the people who cant afford the tag fees? are they in the same boat you claim?

its a auction and there will always be people with more money than you or I. no need to cry over it especially when you can apply to the main draw and have the same odds as everyone else.

I can make those statements because they are true. Every resident of the state has the ability to care how the tags for that state are issued. The animals are held in trust for them. If enough of them dont like it, they can do away with it. You asked who cares? Well, anyone that is a resident of that state can care if they so choose.

There is no penalty for not playing in the auction but any resident that has purchased a hunting license or tag has contributed to keep that one animal killed by the auction tag holder alive. The "penalty" is that this one less tag available to average citizen and stuff held in trust for the residents of the state should not be allocated based on how much people are willing to pay. Governments are not meant to operate that way.

Yes, anyone that cant afford the application and tag fees could make the same claim. The same claim could be made that we could fund the entire conservation of animals by simply auctioning more tags. (See post 27) If this money is so vital and important, could one imagine if they auctioned of 10% of the tags? 50% could we all be sheep hunting OTC every year?

I have nothing against anyone that has enough money to play in this game and if I did have enough money to play in the game, I would. My "argument" is that the tags shouldnt be issued this way. Animals are held in trust for the people of that state and they should have equal shot in the application period like everyone else.

One can point out their dislike for something and not be "crying" about it.

 

[NVUplandHunter]

I can make those statements because they are true. Every resident of the state has the ability to care how the tags for that state are issued. The animals are held in trust for them. If enough of them dont like it, they can do away with it. You asked who cares? Well, anyone that is a resident of that state can care if they so choose.

There is no penalty for not playing in the auction but any resident that has purchased a hunting license or tag has contributed to keep that one animal killed by the auction tag holder alive. The penalty is that this one less tag available to average citizen and stuff held in trust for the residents of the state should not be allocated based on how much people are willing to pay. Governments are not meant to operate that way.

Yes, anyone that cant afford the application and tag fees could make the same claim. The same claim could be made that we could fund the entire conservation of animals by simply auctioning more tags. If this money is so vital and important, could one imagine if they auctioned of 10% of the tags? 50% could we all be sheep hunting OTC every year?

I have nothing against anyone that has enough money to play in this game and if I did have enough money to play in the game, I would. My "argument" is that the tags shouldnt be issued this way. Animals are held in trust for the people of that state and they should have equal shot in the application period like everyone else.

One can point out their dislike for something and not be "crying" about it.

There is no penalty. you said it in your post and then said there is a penalty. ANYONE can put money into the auction that wants to. everyone that pays and doesnt win fits into your list of people who get a "penalty" after saying there isnt one.
for every person that draws a tag in the lottery system thats one less tag for anyone else who also applied. should be just stop giving tags because its unfair or everyone who didnt get one?

you're running in circles here and in the end it all comes back to "its not fair" which is crying about it. everyone who has an issue with an auction hunt is someone who doesnt have the pocket book to play.

you said it yourself, youd do it too if you had the money. so by that standard, why are you complaining at all? because you cant benefit from the system?

 

[CorbLand]

There is no penalty. you said it in your post and then said there is a penalty. ANYONE can put money into the auction that wants to. everyone that pays and doesnt win fits into your list of people who get a "penalty" after saying there isnt one.
for every person that draws a tag in the lottery system thats one less tag for anyone else who also applied. should be just stop giving tags because its unfair or everyone who didnt get one?

you're running in circles here and in the end it all comes back to "its not fair" which is crying about it. everyone who has an issue with an auction hunt is someone who doesnt have the pocket book to play.

you said it yourself, youd do it too if you had the money. so by that standard, why are you complaining at all? because you cant benefit from the system?

I meant to put penalty in "" to infer that its not really a penalty but missed doing that.

I have never once said "its not fair." You asked "who cares" and I responsed back with who cares. Nothing more, nothing less.

The fact that you cant understand that one can share their dislike for something and it not be "complaining" or "crying" is proven by your comment that "everyone who has an issue with an auction hunt is someone who doesn't have the pocket book to play."

If one cannot understand that then there is zero point in even having the discussion.

One can take advantage of something, while not agreeing with the system being built in a way to be taken advantage of. I do benefit from the auction tags in that they bring in a ton of funds that I dont have to pay. But if you asked me do you want us to auction a tag of or raffle it off? 100% of the time I am going to say raffle. Even if that meant I had to pay a little more for a license or tag.

 

[NVUplandHunter]

I meant to put penalty in "" to infer that its not really a penalty but missed doing that.

I have never once said "its not fair." You asked "who cares" and I responsed back with who cares. Nothing more, nothing less.

The fact that you cant understand that one can share their dislike for something and it not be "complaining" or "crying" is proven by your comment that "everyone who has an issue with an auction hunt is someone who doesn't have the pocket book to play."

If one cannot understand that then there is zero point in even having the discussion.

i can understand it fine. the points being made about the dislike are all about "fairness" and it coming down to people not able to come up with enough money to play in the auction. it wouldnt be one less tag for someone if everyone could toss in a dollar to it. so in the end, the only complaint is the sum of money it takes to play in the game. that is why its nothing but a complaint or crying over it.

its nothing to do with me not understanding. I understand just fine which is why im sticking to my guns about it unless you or anyone else can tell me an actual reason its bad? its a tag that requires no lottery or special conditions, just whos got the most money to throw at it.... like any other auction.

So i guess back to my statement you are replying to, the guys who care are the ones who dont have enough money to buy the tag soooooo they are upset by that?

 

[CorbLand]

i can understand it fine. the points being made about the dislike are all about "fairness" and it coming down to people not able to come up with enough money to play in the auction. it wouldnt be one less tag for someone if everyone could toss in a dollar to it. so in the end, the only complaint is the sum of money it takes to play in the game. that is why its nothing but a complaint or crying over it.

its nothing to do with me not understanding. I understand just fine which is why im sticking to my guns about it unless you or anyone else can tell me an actual reason its bad? its a tag that requires no lottery or special conditions, just whos got the most money to throw at it.... like any other auction.

So i guess back to my statement you are replying to, the guys who care are the ones who dont have enough money to buy the tag soooooo they are upset by that?

There are definitly people out there that are mad because they dont have funds to play. Which is why I said I dont agree with the OP because his post comes across as whining. There are legitmate reasons to disagree with auction tags and they are not "whining" or "jealousy."

But anyone that is a resident of the state has the ability to complain about the system regardless of their reasoning why. There are pros and cons to each system.

I feel like I stated my reasoning for disliking them. I dont think that anything held in trust for the people of that state should be auctioned off. Period. Its not meant to go to the highest bidder. Its meant to be held in trust for everyone in that state. Governments dont produce, they take and they shouldnt take and then give to who is willing to pay the most. Now, in many states, the people of those states allow it to happen and that is up to them. Like I added to my last post. I dont like it. I am not complaining, I am not crying, I am saying I dont like it.