The Trail Cam Celebration

[twigsnapper]

It doesnt say anything about equal opportunity for all, if it was equal opportunity for all, bonus point and preferences point system would violate the model.

[AZkiller]

 

 

 

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?

Your math is wrong. That's not how odds work. I thought you were the odds guy

My point isnt that your odds would be better, my point is that offering a chance at a tag for $5 makes it more accessible for some people than having to pay $13. Flatlander keeps arguing that the North American model is at being violated beacuase of the proposed raffle tags but its not. The North American Model doesnt say anything about keeping draw odds at a particular level. Auctioning tags is a different argument but a raffle is no different than a lottery tag through a normal draw system.

I was talking about Andrew's math

[twigsnapper]

Sorry AZKiller, im a little quick on the trigger these days...

[brian390]

 

Hey Dustin will you please just answer the question, why are the CAPAZ guys so committed to tags? Why?

What other options are you in here advocating for? Why is the discussion always tags?

Why do you oppose a stamp? License fee increase? Additional portal benefits?

I can give you my opinion, but I can't speak directly for them. I believe they view tags as the best way to fund this based off of conversations with the Department, and the Department's opposition to using a license fee.

 

If you go back through all my posts, you will see that I have essentially advocated for any funding methods that will move the plan forward, and I also believe that a stamp or license fee increase should be considered, as should ALL other alternative sources, unless they can prove not to be viable.

 

My main concern about things like additional portal benefits and similar things is that the Department plans upon expanding the portal as it is and making their own money from it. Which is also a concern I have about license fee increases, without legislation the Department could do as they wish with the money.

 

I will say that I submitted a proposal that doesn't include tags, license fee increases, or stamps, and essentially was to create a type of general lottery. However, I learned more about the laws that govern these things, and it doesn't appear as though that would be feasible.

 

 

I also agree with you that a stamp or license fee increase should be considered, because your idea of raffle tags and auction tags is stupid.

 

I trust the department a whole lot more than you guys on this committee with my money.

 

If you're going to change things make them for the better not worse.

[brian390]

 

 

 

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?

Your math is wrong. That's not how odds work. I thought you were the odds guy

My point isnt that your odds would be better, my point is that offering a chance at a tag for $5 makes it more accessible for some people than having to pay $13. Flatlander keeps arguing that the North American model is at being violated beacuase of the proposed raffle tags but its not. The North American Model doesnt say anything about keeping draw odds at a particular level. Auctioning tags is a different argument but a raffle is no different than a lottery tag through a normal draw system.

 

 

Yeah 5 bucks and 13 bucks sounds a lot more affordable than your raffle and auction ideas. Just increasing everyone's fee a little would pay for it all and everyone would more likely be able to hunt. A raffle is a joke and you could spend a ton of money on them and never get a tag in a hundred years. A raffle is not the same as a normal draw system like you say. In a draw system you get a bonus point when not drawn and your odds increase most likely each year that you aren't drawn. In a raffle everyone is unlucky but 1 guy, and everyone just spent a ton of money for no increase in draw odds.

[brian390]

It doesnt say anything about equal opportunity for all, if it was equal opportunity for all, bonus point and preferences point system would violate the model.

 

This quote from you just shows that the only people that you want to be able to hunt is the rich and no one else. Bonus points and preference points don't mean equal opportunity for all but it means that everyone is getting a fair deal. If you can't afford to put in for a hunt at reasonable prices then you don't get a bonus or preference point. This makes bonus points and preference points not equal opportunity but it makes them fair for everyone and logical. If you guys just want the rich to hunt than you're going to kill support for hunting all together. This whole idea about raising money to educate for support of hunting would actually cause less support when only the rich can do it. You rich guys that think that you only deserve these tags will end up shooting yourself in the foot when you're the only one hunting and everyone else's support for hunting is gone.

[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?

Your math is wrong. That's not how odds work. I thought you were the odds guy

My point isnt that your odds would be better, my point is that offering a chance at a tag for $5 makes it more accessible for some people than having to pay $13. Flatlander keeps arguing that the North American model is at being violated beacuase of the proposed raffle tags but its not. The North American Model doesnt say anything about keeping draw odds at a particular level. Auctioning tags is a different argument but a raffle is no different than a lottery tag through a normal draw system.

I was talking about Andrew's math

If the math is wrong feel free to fix it. I put it right there for everyone to see and understand.

 

If you do it will be the first meaningful contribution you have ever made to this site. Would be a refreshing change from your vague posts and hiding behind someone elses ideas.

[AZkiller]

 

 

 

 

 

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?

Your math is wrong. That's not how odds work. I thought you were the odds guy

My point isnt that your odds would be better, my point is that offering a chance at a tag for $5 makes it more accessible for some people than having to pay $13. Flatlander keeps arguing that the North American model is at being violated beacuase of the proposed raffle tags but its not. The North American Model doesnt say anything about keeping draw odds at a particular level. Auctioning tags is a different argument but a raffle is no different than a lottery tag through a normal draw system.

I was talking about Andrew's math

If the math is wrong feel free to fix it. I put it right there for everyone to see and understand.

 

If you do it will be the first meaningful contribution you have ever made to this site. Would be a refreshing change from your vague posts and hiding behind someone elses ideas.

Don't post drunk.. Let's play nice. Odds are 3% vs .3% you won't be able to buy 3000 tickets. I would have no problem however with someone wanting to put 30k into the g&f for this. Also I don't hate the rich. Now get back on that hog!

[brian390]

 

 

 

 

 

 

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?

Your math is wrong. That's not how odds work. I thought you were the odds guy

My point isnt that your odds would be better, my point is that offering a chance at a tag for $5 makes it more accessible for some people than having to pay $13. Flatlander keeps arguing that the North American model is at being violated beacuase of the proposed raffle tags but its not. The North American Model doesnt say anything about keeping draw odds at a particular level. Auctioning tags is a different argument but a raffle is no different than a lottery tag through a normal draw system.

I was talking about Andrew's math

If the math is wrong feel free to fix it. I put it right there for everyone to see and understand.

 

If you do it will be the first meaningful contribution you have ever made to this site. Would be a refreshing change from your vague posts and hiding behind someone elses ideas.

Don't post drunk.. Let's play nice. Odds are 3% vs .3% you won't be able to buy 3000 tickets. I would have no problem however with someone wanting to put 30k into the g&f for this. Also I don't hate the rich. Now get back on that hog!

 

 

Also I don't hate the middle class. Now get back on that hog!

[twigsnapper]

 

A raffle is not the same as a normal draw system like you say. In a draw system you get a bonus point when not drawn and your odds increase most likely each year that you aren't drawn. In a raffle everyone is unlucky but 1 guy, and everyone just spent a ton of money for no increase in draw odds.

 

Not all states have point systems. Go ask the residents of Wyoming(elk, deer, antelope) and New Mexico how their point system works.

[brian390]

 

A raffle is not the same as a normal draw system like you say. In a draw system you get a bonus point when not drawn and your odds increase most likely each year that you aren't drawn. In a raffle everyone is unlucky but 1 guy, and everyone just spent a ton of money for no increase in draw odds.

 

Not all states have point systems. Go ask the residents of Wyoming(elk, deer, antelope) and New Mexico how their point system works.

 

Wyoming uses preference points which is a fair way of doing a draw. New Mexico uses a lottery where everyone has equal chances. New Mexico and Wyoming also refund unsuccessful applicants. A raffle doesn't refund unsuccessful applicants and your kind of raffles for the rich guys I doubt would have everyone getting equal odds. Also in my opinion the way Arizona does their bonus points is more fair than these two states that you have mentioned. So Arizona does it better than most if not all and you guys are trying to make it worse than the rest. So if I look at your post above, what point are you trying to make other than change to the subject?

[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?

Your math is wrong. That's not how odds work. I thought you were the odds guy

My point isnt that your odds would be better, my point is that offering a chance at a tag for $5 makes it more accessible for some people than having to pay $13. Flatlander keeps arguing that the North American model is at being violated beacuase of the proposed raffle tags but its not. The North American Model doesnt say anything about keeping draw odds at a particular level. Auctioning tags is a different argument but a raffle is no different than a lottery tag through a normal draw system.

I was talking about Andrew's math

If the math is wrong feel free to fix it. I put it right there for everyone to see and understand.

 

If you do it will be the first meaningful contribution you have ever made to this site. Would be a refreshing change from your vague posts and hiding behind someone elses ideas.

Don't post drunk.. Let's play nice. Odds are 3% vs .3% you won't be able to buy 3000 tickets. I would have no problem however with someone wanting to put 30k into the g&f for this. Also I don't hate the rich. Now get back on that hog!

1. Never been drunk in my life, so guess you will have to take your own advice.

 

2. If someone buys 10 tickets for 300 different raffles that = 3,000 tickets. Thats 2,999 more than a person who only buys one.

 

3. The difference between a draw and what is being proposed here

 

a) In a draw each applicant is allowed to purchase one entry.

 

b ) In a draw each applicant is only allowed to select a set number of choices and cannot apply for each hunt separately for an additional fee.

 

This is clearly not a draw and the differences are plain and apparent. If you think its the same you are either unwilling or unable to look at it plainly and rationally. Either way I cannot help you and no one new is reading this so I am done wasting my breath and my math.

 

It seems the point of the of the pro tag crowd is that if people want to spend money on tags just let them. If thats the case lets just auction every tag in the state one at a time. That would certainly raise the most money.

[trophyseeker]

 

 

 

 

 

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?

Your math is wrong. That's not how odds work. I thought you were the odds guy

My point isnt that your odds would be better, my point is that offering a chance at a tag for $5 makes it more accessible for some people than having to pay $13. Flatlander keeps arguing that the North American model is at being violated beacuase of the proposed raffle tags but its not. The North American Model doesnt say anything about keeping draw odds at a particular level. Auctioning tags is a different argument but a raffle is no different than a lottery tag through a normal draw system.

I was talking about Andrew's math

If the math is wrong feel free to fix it. I put it right there for everyone to see and understand.

 

If you do it will be the first meaningful contribution you have ever made to this site. Would be a refreshing change from your vague posts and hiding behind someone elses ideas.

 

 

 

Well, this might not be a meaningful contribution, but I'll offer it up anyway.

 

The problem with the 3000-1 odds is pretty simple. It ignores every other entry in the raffle(s). And in reality, if the limit is 10 entries in each of the 300 separate raffles, then the odds for any raffled specie tag between two INDIVIDUALS would be 10 to 1 (the person who bought only one chance). But then again, there would be many more ttan those two individuals entered in each raffle. So the odds of those buying 10 chances go down dramatically with every other entry.

[twigsnapper]

 

 

 

A raffle is not the same as a normal draw system like you say. In a draw system you get a bonus point when not drawn and your odds increase most likely each year that you aren't drawn. In a raffle everyone is unlucky but 1 guy, and everyone just spent a ton of money for no increase in draw odds.

 

Not all states have point systems. Go ask the residents of Wyoming(elk, deer, antelope) and New Mexico how their point system works.

 

Wyoming uses preference points which is a fair way of doing a draw. New Mexico uses a lottery where everyone has equal chances. New Mexico and Wyoming also refund unsuccessful applicants. A raffle doesn't refund unsuccessful applicants and your kind of raffles for the rich guys I doubt would have everyone getting equal odds. Also in my opinion the way Arizona does their bonus points is more fair than these two states that you have mentioned. So Arizona does it better than most if not all and you guys are trying to make it worse than the rest. So if I look at your post above, what point are you trying to make other than change to the subject?

 

Wyoming residents dont have presence points for elk deer or antelope, both states charge a fee to apply, which is no different than the cost of a raffle ticket. In some raffles you can buy multiple chances, some raffles only allow one ticket per person. The rules around the proposed tags havent even been established, and this isnt my proposal, Im just trying to clear up the gobs and gobs of misinformation that people keep trying to spread on this sight. Sooo, WY(resident elk deer and antelope) and New Mexico basically run a raffle for their draws with one entry per person....

[trophyseeker]

I should have added to my reply above:

In reality, the odds for the proposed raffle(s) are much like the regular draw in that someone with one bonus point is competing with others who have many more for any specific hunt, including those who have 10 points or more. The only difference is everyone pays the same application fee each year while those who want more "points" in the raffle(s) will have to fork over more money in application fees, thus adding the revenue for "education."

Also, I spent two hours yesterday going through related threads on MM to ferret out some of the details of the "Utah model." I'll start a new thread here when I get more time later today or tomorrow.