The Trail Cam Celebration

[MT_Sourdough]

 

Would it follow the Utah model where you win the tag and still have to pay the tags regular price? If not how will the game and fish make up the funds they will be loosing at selling tags for raffle price and not the actual tag price? If you can buy multiple chances can you draw multiple tags? How will multiple tags be separated?

 

 

I doubt the first question would be an actual result here.

 

A "raffle" entails selling many chances for a SINGLE tag. Thus the answer to second question. Hypothetically, if raffle chances are $5 each and they sell 1000 for one tag, the revenue is $5,000, which would be more than enough to cover the regular cost of that tag. Your other questions would be determined if this would come to pass.

 

I am sure they would sell more tags at $5 a whack, but just the same, think about about the number of tags that would need to be raffled to get to the million to two million dollar range. It seems the people who gain the most are people who haven't been paying into the system by buying chances/points.

I still have yet to hear a legitimate answer to the question, why tags? Why are people so insistent that stealing tags from our system is necessary?

[Titanium700]

Heres a thought...you either put in for the regular draw or buy in to the lottery...cant do both.

But regardless of which you put in for you still dont lose a loyalty point for that species.

But I really dont like the idea of a lottery to begin with.

[AZ420]

Instead of a tag grab, maybe the commission would go for this idea to raise money. For the 365 day (Aug15-Aug 14) Raffle/Auction tags, change it to Aug 15-Dec 31st. Currently a fair number of raffle/auction hunters don't tag a animal one year, so they will continue to hunt the following year and tag a buck/bull in velvet. By shortening the season this would allow the commission to issue more auction/raffle tags. So say you were issuing 6 tags, then increase it to 10-12. This would nearly double the amount of money the department makes on these tags, while allowing twice as many people to hunt, because one individual won't be able to hunt both years. I think there will be enough wealthy people still willing to pay the current bid prices, even with more hunters in the field, and a shortened season

[brian390]

Capture.PNG

 

Mexico = 70

AZ = 77

 

Mexico - All purchased

AZ - At most 8 were purchased, 69-70 were drawn

 

This is Arizona not Mexico. Why would you compare Arizona to Mexico? That's like comparing Arizona to California. We don't want to be like Mexico.

[twigsnapper]

My point was that rich guys who want to buy a tag can go to Mexico and hunt desert sheep for 40-50,000, they dont have to buy the higher priced $200,000+ auction tags in AZ or wait on the draw. And that many book rams come from Mexico, not just AZ.

 

People keep making the argument that the current education funding is all about getting tags for their rich clients but the reality is there are tags all over the place for various species that can be bought. I think we are often too Arizona-centric in our thinking.

[Flatlander]

My point was that rich guys who want to buy a tag can go to Mexico and hunt desert sheep for 40-50,000, they dont have to buy the higher priced $200,000+ auction tags in AZ or wait on the draw. And that many book rams come from Mexico, not just AZ.

 

People keep making the argument that the current education funding is all about getting tags for their rich clients but the reality is there are tags all over the place for various species that can be bought. I think we are often too Arizona-centric in our thinking.

The argument that I have made and heard others express is that we are opposed to creating a system that takes tags that should otherwise be available to everyone at an equal opportunity through the draw process and re-allocating them into a system where the more money you spend the more opportunity you have to get those tags.

 

My point is that this conflicts with the North American model tenants that wildlife is held in public trust and that all have opportunity to participate. By providing additional opportunity, for additional dollars we employ a pay to play system that will eventually price put some classes of sportsmen.

 

This is clearly demonstrated in Utah where tags that would otherwise be distributed through the draw are auctioned off for $10k+ or raffles to people who pay hundreds to buy a raffle ticket for every hunt in the system.

[Nefarious Red]

But not all have an opportunity to participate. If you don't have the 300 dollars for a sheep tag, you don't participate. However, we aren't going to lower the cost of a sheep tag. So an economic disparity already exists. But if someone has 10 or 20 dollars to enter a raffle for a sheep tag, they now have a chance. Provided some type of reasonable restrictions exist that prevent any one person from overpowering the raffle financially. Raffles would create more of a level playing field for those not economically viable.

[twigsnapper]

The argument could be made that offering tags for $5 per chance instead of $13 is more supportive of the North American Model.

[azbugler]

But not all have an opportunity to participate. If you don't have the 300 dollars for a sheep tag, you don't participate. However, we aren't going to lower the cost of a sheep tag. So an economic disparity already exists. But if someone has 10 or 20 dollars to enter a raffle for a sheep tag, they now have a chance. Provided some type of reasonable restrictions exist that prevent any one person from overpowering the raffle financially. Raffles would create more of a level playing field for those not economically viable.

Bingo! It actually gives some people an opportunity they wouldnt otherwise have. And it will not draw the big money due to the fact that its a regular or almost regular season. Put simply, its worth some money for sure but not hundreds of thousands like the current raffle tags.

[Flatlander]

The argument could be made that offering tags for $5 per chance instead of $13 is more supportive of the North American Model.

You could argue that, but you would be lying to yourself.

 

If 300 tags are given to the raffle and tickets are sold for $10 and a 10 ticket per person limit were imposed then that would mean if someone were to max out on all of the rafffles it would cost him $30k. For his investment he would have 3000x more chance of drawing a tag than someone who bought a single ticket. That is the definition of disparity.

 

Even for a single hunt anyone can purchase 10x more opportunity than another for $90 more investment.

 

This is exactly my concern with these systems. They are built to exploit economic disparity among sportsmen. So will anyone please for crying out loud tell me why it HAS to be tags. Why is that the only option a certain group of people will advocate for?

[GJMauro12]

But not all have an opportunity to participate. If you don't have the 300 dollars for a sheep tag, you don't participate. However, we aren't going to lower the cost of a sheep tag. So an economic disparity already exists. But if someone has 10 or 20 dollars to enter a raffle for a sheep tag, they now have a chance. Provided some type of reasonable restrictions exist that prevent any one person from overpowering the raffle financially. Raffles would create more of a level playing field for those not economically viable.

If you cant set aside $300 a year I would advise you not to waste your money on a raffle ticket. This argument isnt very strong.

[knothead]

The only thing G&F has to sale that has any value is hunt tags, hunting/fishing licenses and bonus points. All other forms of income must come in the way of licenses, tags, donations or user fees such as habitat stamps or application fees.

 

Would you pay $10 to be entered into a drawing to win 5 or 10 bonus points for 1 species of your choice? How about $10 for a chance to win a lifetime hunting or fishing license? Raffle off 100 five bonus points packs and 100 lifetime licenses. Would not raise all the money needed but it is a start. Bonus points don't cost G&F a penny and they could give give them away like cheap candy.

 

Just thinking out of the box a little.

 

By the way, it would take about $7.10 to raise 2,000,000 if every elk hunt applicant had to pay for a habitat stamp. $11.20 for every deer hunter to raise the same amount. $2,000,000 is the number that has been mentioned that we hunters would need every year to fight off the anti-hunters by educating the public.

 

Good luck to all those that applied for the draw.

[twigsnapper]

 

The argument could be made that offering tags for $5 per chance instead of $13 is more supportive of the North American Model.

You could argue that, but you would be lying to yourself.

 

If 300 tags are given to the raffle and tickets are sold for $10 and a 10 ticket per person limit were imposed then that would mean if someone were to max out on all of the rafffles it would cost him $30k. For his investment he would have 3000x more chance of drawing a tag than someone who bought a single ticket. That is the definition of disparity.

 

Even for a single hunt anyone can purchase 10x more opportunity than another for $90 more investment.

 

This is exactly my concern with these systems. They are built to exploit economic disparity among sportsmen. So will anyone please for crying out loud tell me why it HAS to be tags. Why is that the only option a certain group of people will advocate for?

I would actually prefer a stamp over raffle tags but selfishly if Im paying $5 or $10 Id rather get a chance at a tag than getting a stamp of no value.

 

Do you disagree with bonus points or preference points? They have similar idea as you just illustrated, creating disparity....And i suppose violating the North American model with your argument of having more chances than others with less points

[twigsnapper]

If 300 tags are given to the raffle and tickets are sold for $10 and a 10 ticket per person limit were imposed then that would mean if someone were to max out on all of the rafffles it would cost him $30k. For his investment he would have 3000x more chance of drawing a tag than someone who bought a single ticket. That is the definition of disparity

 

Also, if someone wants to spend $30,000 on raffles tickets, I say heck ya, thats $30,000 more than we would get from him otherwise. If we use a stamp we would only get $5 bucks from the guy.

 

Thats $30,000 hes not spending on landowner tags in WY/MT/CO.

[Nefarious Red]

 

But not all have an opportunity to participate. If you don't have the 300 dollars for a sheep tag, you don't participate. However, we aren't going to lower the cost of a sheep tag. So an economic disparity already exists. But if someone has 10 or 20 dollars to enter a raffle for a sheep tag, they now have a chance. Provided some type of reasonable restrictions exist that prevent any one person from overpowering the raffle financially. Raffles would create more of a level playing field for those not economically viable.

If you cant set aside $300 a year I would advise you not to waste your money on a raffle ticket. This argument isnt very strong.

If you can't set aside 300k for an auction tag, I advise you not to waste your money on a stamp.