AGFD news What would you think of a new online club for hunters?

[Chef]

.....And I definatley wouldnt charge our service men and women and the sick a fee to turn in their tag....

 

This was brought up last night as well. I'm glad you feel the same.

Not charging the youth was another submitted comment.

 

Like Flatlander stated in the meeting, this would establish some goodwill with the department.

[krp]

Absolutely, the club thing is what we hammered last night at the meeting as it relates to tag transfer... it was no, no, and he'll no.

 

Tag surrender I guess I'm ok with and realistically if it goes to the dept and not donated, as long as it's next in line policy, that tag will go to someone that was in the BP 20% pass or the next highest point holder, so it clears another high BP holder out.

 

There is more work to be done to clamp down the tightest restrictions and still be fair.

 

The feeling I'm getting for having the club is to increase the use of the new site.It's going to be kinda like your data phone that you can put apps on your front page. You will put the things you use the most on your personal page. It will increase online license sales if you get a reminder on your page when it's time to renew, paper apps cost much more money to process. That's just a small sample. fishing reports, stockings... All this is free.

 

I'm not sure a club will generate any more traffic and you are absolutely right in they need to show us a working model before going there.

 

These are some of the things discussed and I will say acknowledged by the G&F. I think the club thing will be pushed down the line with no real deadline and the new Portal, all free, started and then expanded.

 

I'd rather see the new in house draw site ironed out before any club thing.

 

Kent

[krp]

I'll say this also, once the tag transfer is removed from the club, it removes it from the whole Portal agenda. Then we can take on both separately.

 

Tying them together was bad PR, just the ventricular of 'early draw results' was bad PR. Folks are mad about all the issues with the draw now.

 

In house is supposed to fix this, lets get it running smooth, get the Portal up in jan and then possibly see what the customers want.

 

That was a big theme and if folks go to the meetings can reiterate.

 

Kent

[Flatlander]

Right on the money Kent.

[stanley]

Big + 1 on your last two posts, Kent!!

 

Also Lance, I like your idea of current members of conservation/outdoor groups getting the access (as opposed to having to pay extra for it). That is an idea that I did not hear floated when Scott was asking for input and those that were there were brainstorming options. I'm planning on going to Bass Pro on Tuesday and will throw that on the table.

 

520HUNT, it's good that you sent the letter to the Commissioners. Regarding your expectation of hearing back from them, I wouldn't count on it. Not because they don't care, but likely because they are VERY busy and rely on Branch Chief's like Scott Lavin to work on and handle projects like the website overhaul and such. Hopefully they will get the letters and forward to Scott and/or his team for consideration. I would maybe also recommend e-mailing the comments directly to Scott. Also, you are clearly passionate about this topic. The passionate feedback is EXACTLY what they want, and if you could make it to one of the meetings on the schedule that Flatlander posted it would be good.

 

S.

 

[elkaholic]

you do not have to email Scott - call G&F and ask for Scott or use directory option - leave a message

 

I did this and Scott took the time to return my call and we chatted for a few minutes.

 

He and his group are trying to get as much information / opinions/ suggestions as possible to present to the commission .

 

Anyone and everyone should also send your "thoughts" directly to the Commissioners too!!!

[Swivelhead]

you do not have to email Scott - call G&F and ask for Scott or use directory option - leave a message

 

I did this and Scott took the time to return my call and we chatted for a few minutes.

 

He and his group are trying to get as much information / opinions/ suggestions as possible to present to the commission .

 

Anyone and everyone should also send your "thoughts" directly to the Commissioners too!!!

+1

[stanley]

 

you do not have to email Scott - call G&F and ask for Scott or use directory option - leave a message

 

I did this and Scott took the time to return my call and we chatted for a few minutes.

 

He and his group are trying to get as much information / opinions/ suggestions as possible to present to the commission .

 

Anyone and everyone should also send your "thoughts" directly to the Commissioners too!!!

+1

 

Yep! Phone call, e-mail, courier pigeon, smoke-signal, whatever. Just so the feedback gets to him!

 

S.

 

[Zim]

"Another thing to note is that surrendered tags don't necessarily need to go back to the department, but any of the approved 501c3 organizations. Such as the ones we are all familiar with that assist wounded military, terminally ill youth, and others. One would get their bonus points reinstated and get a tax write off in the process this way."

 

Any process like this needs to be VERY carefully controlled. What if an approved 501C3 had the same intentions as the backers of HB2072 that was (thankfully) defeated?

 

OK, here is a scenario for the tag return. Say I've got max points for elk. With those I can get drawn for a trophy rifle hunt any year. I get an early unit 10 bull tag. Mr. X pays me $5000 cash under the table to "donate" the tag to a specific 501C3. Said 501C3 sells the tag to Mr. X or his wife or son or ??? for another $5000. I get my bonus points back plus the point as if I was not drawn. Next year, by definition I'm at the top of the heap again so I get an early rifle bull tag in unit 23. Wash rinse and repeat, over and over for years.

 

The rules need to be VERY tightly written to prevent all kinds of unforeseen abuse.

This is the first thing I thought of when I read this proposal. I have no problem with a tag surrender policy, as long as it is available to everyone, and any surrendered tags went to the next guy in line ONLY. Allowing someone to turn it over to a so called "nonprofit" org, while retaining their points, is outrageous, and should be TOTALLY out of the question. All points should be lost. Anything less would be a way for corruption to work it's way in. Such a policy would grossly cheapen everyone else's points, and cheat those next in line.

[Flatlander]

 

"Another thing to note is that surrendered tags don't necessarily need to go back to the department, but any of the approved 501c3 organizations. Such as the ones we are all familiar with that assist wounded military, terminally ill youth, and others. One would get their bonus points reinstated and get a tax write off in the process this way."

 

Any process like this needs to be VERY carefully controlled. What if an approved 501C3 had the same intentions as the backers of HB2072 that was (thankfully) defeated?

 

OK, here is a scenario for the tag return. Say I've got max points for elk. With those I can get drawn for a trophy rifle hunt any year. I get an early unit 10 bull tag. Mr. X pays me $5000 cash under the table to "donate" the tag to a specific 501C3. Said 501C3 sells the tag to Mr. X or his wife or son or ??? for another $5000. I get my bonus points back plus the point as if I was not drawn. Next year, by definition I'm at the top of the heap again so I get an early rifle bull tag in unit 23. Wash rinse and repeat, over and over for years.

 

The rules need to be VERY tightly written to prevent all kinds of unforeseen abuse.

This is the first thing I thought of when I read this proposal. I have no problem with a tag surrender policy, as long as it is available to everyone, and any surrendered tags went to the next guy in line ONLY. Allowing someone to turn it over to a so called "nonprofit" org, while retaining their points, is outrageous, and should be TOTALLY out of the question. All points should be lost. Anything less would be a way for corruption to work it's way in. Such a policy would grossly cheapen everyone else's points, and cheat those next in line.

Hunt of a lifetime? Really guys, there lots of worthy organizations who deserve surrendered tags and already get them.

[krp]

This is just another vernacular issue and not being clear in the definition. 501c3 in this case means the same donation avenues that exist now... children facing life threatening diseases, disabled veterans? others? just the same as now but you get your points back.

 

Back during 2072 the azsfw folks were also heavily entrenched as officers in some of the other critter orgs. We used the term 501c3 to describe these orgs quite often and it almost became a negative term. So I can understand the concern over the term and possible implication... it has nothing to do with critter orgs getting tags.

 

Kent

[40-year-AZ-hunter]

 

 

"Another thing to note is that surrendered tags don't necessarily need to go back to the department, but any of the approved 501c3 organizations. Such as the ones we are all familiar with that assist wounded military, terminally ill youth, and others. One would get their bonus points reinstated and get a tax write off in the process this way."

 

Any process like this needs to be VERY carefully controlled. What if an approved 501C3 had the same intentions as the backers of HB2072 that was (thankfully) defeated?

 

OK, here is a scenario for the tag return. Say I've got max points for elk. With those I can get drawn for a trophy rifle hunt any year. I get an early unit 10 bull tag. Mr. X pays me $5000 cash under the table to "donate" the tag to a specific 501C3. Said 501C3 sells the tag to Mr. X or his wife or son or ??? for another $5000. I get my bonus points back plus the point as if I was not drawn. Next year, by definition I'm at the top of the heap again so I get an early rifle bull tag in unit 23. Wash rinse and repeat, over and over for years.

 

The rules need to be VERY tightly written to prevent all kinds of unforeseen abuse.

This is the first thing I thought of when I read this proposal. I have no problem with a tag surrender policy, as long as it is available to everyone, and any surrendered tags went to the next guy in line ONLY. Allowing someone to turn it over to a so called "nonprofit" org, while retaining their points, is outrageous, and should be TOTALLY out of the question. All points should be lost. Anything less would be a way for corruption to work it's way in. Such a policy would grossly cheapen everyone else's points, and cheat those next in line.

Hunt of a lifetime? Really guys, there lots of worthy organizations who deserve surrendered tags and already get them.

 

.

 

No doubt. Some of us would like to make sure it stays that way.

 

Some of us remember HB2072 that would have allocated a bunch of premium tags to AZSFW ( never mentioned by name in the bill but the only 501C3 that met the criteria outlined therein) to be sold at their discretion. By the way, some other folks thought that bill allocated tags to a "worthy organization", just a difference of opinion about what constitutes "worthy". By the way, as I remember HOAL opposed HB2072!

 

Some of us would just like to see this tightly controlled to prevent big money interests from getting another leg up on the masses.

 

Some of us worry about abuse of any government system by folks who learn to play the system.

[krp]

Also when guys like Gary, Ryan, Lance and some others say something's wrong I listen, though it may not turn out to be the specific problem, their intuition usually shows something needs to be addressed.

 

Kent

[Flatlander]

This is one of our biggest issues as sportsmen. The way we splinter and fragment whenever we are faced with decisions that impact our processes.

 

When you say "Some of us . . . " you imply anyone who disagrees with you does not remember 2072 or does not worry about abuse. I assure you we stand on the same side of the fence on those issues. However I do feel that there are organizations that do now benefit, without prevalent abuse of which I am aware, and could continue to do so. Surrendered tags today can only be given to HOAL or similar organizations and it is my preference that those organizations not get slighted in this potential change. But rather than say "Some of us want sick kids to be able to go hunting. . . " I will just say that perhaps collectively we could work on a plan that allows organizations benefiting ill or under privileged children to continue to receive the opportunities they now have. Just my .02, I don't feel like we need to be enemies, I don't think we really even disagree much. Honestly, I have said from the beginning I have no idea why hunters want a change to the tag surrender laws, but if guys want it, then I am willing to see if there is a plan that meets their needs without hosing a bunch of other deserving folks in the process.

[ThomC]

How many lines of code would it take to add all of the little tweaks to the draw that everyone wants. All of these little changes are going to cost money and will not improve your odds one iota.