Super Bonus Point

[AZ8]

12 minutes ago, muledeerarea33? said:

I watched the video but must of missed this. They said the stamp would raise a million but the super point would raise half a million, why not go with the stamp? It was 430 am when I watched so I might of missed something.

They said if the voluntary stamp participation was 100%, it would raise 1M. They acknowledged in the video that a voluntary stamp purchase would be very low, thus discounting it’s effect. 

[muledeerarea33?]

37 minutes ago, Forlorn Hope said:

They said if the voluntary stamp participation was 100%, it would raise 1M. They acknowledged in the video that a voluntary stamp purchase would be very low, thus discounting it’s effect. 

So make it mandatory. 2 bucks is better than 13 buck for a fake point that every one will use. And charge hikers, and the rest! It’ll make even more. Am I wrong that an extra 2 bucks is easier to swallow than a $13 hunt fee? Atleast the $2 would charge everyone, or would it?

[AZ8]

13 minutes ago, muledeerarea33? said:

So make it mandatory. 2 bucks is better than 13 buck for a fake point that every one will use. And charge hikers, and the rest! It’ll make even more. Am I wrong that an extra 2 bucks is easier to swallow than a $13 hunt fee? Atleast the $2 would charge everyone, of would it?

I’ve been on board from day one regarding the conservation stamp idea. 

 I don’t understand the blowback from the Department with this idea. I guess we can just keep giving them our comments and see how it plays out!

[oz31p]

Will any of this new revenue increase enforcement from the current one or two leo’s Per unit???

[muledeerarea33?]

I’m not against the super man point. But I’m not against the a stamp either. I’m against an auction. Also not against a raffle as flatlander stated. I think the stamp FOR EVERYONE. Would raise the most money with the least controversy. I’ve given them my 2 cents in the comments survey.

[AZkiller]

25 minutes ago, oz31p said:

Will any of this new revenue increase enforcement from the current one or two leo’s Per unit???

It's not supposed to. It is all supposed to go to public education

[AZkiller]

26 minutes ago, muledeerarea33? said:

I’m not against the super man point. But I’m not against the a stamp either. I’m against an auction. Also not against a raffle as flatlander stated. I think the stamp FOR EVERYONE. Would raise the most money with the least controversy. I’ve given them my 2 cents in the comments survey.

I say do them all

[krp]

1 species per year and permanent BP makes no sense mathematically or marketability. The draw is already too gimmicky. 

All but the top tier BP holders will ditch the gimmick after a couple years and the revenue will be very low.

13 bucks is way to low for a permanent BP, 100 bucks is more realistic but then becomes a game for haves and have nots. Back to money buys public resource.

1 BP per species for that year, I apply for deer, elk and antelope, that's 3 purchases as a customer instead of one, others apply for more species. 5 bucks per BP and that would be $15 every year, at 13 bucks it would be $36. I would be good with either or anywhere between, I can afford it to further education, a family may need it to be less and I'm good with that.

It's a good idea but the parameters are totally wrong.

Kent

[ThomC]

How about a Game and Fish powerball lottery.  There seems to be no end of suckers that are dreaming of getting rich quick.  The problem with all schemes is give a bureaucrat money and they will waste it on meetings, trips. sex and whiskey.  😱😬 😁  

[pwrguy]

So, I have accumulated a high amount of bonus points for 3 different species.  On the surface at least it appears I would have to choose which 2 I am going to fall behind on or am I missing something???   Not sure I am fond of this solution for funding.

[krp]

You are correct in the proposed format.

I'm hoping they just haven't thought this through, though the dynamics aren't hard to recognize at first sight.

Kent

[win71]

12 hours ago, oz31p said:

Will any of this new revenue increase enforcement from the current one or two leo’s Per unit???

Nope just buy some more new trucks 
dan

[duckhunter175]

The more I read and look at this the less a fan of the 'super point' I become. It seems like it's a bandaid solution instead of something that is long term and sustainable. And I don't understand why they say a conservation stamp would have to be voluntary...  Set it up so that if you are recreating on public lands (every unit in AZ) then you must have a "recreation pass"-- hikers, bikers, fisherman, boaters etc are included and make it reasonable. 

 

The real problem is that hunters and anglers pay for the vast majority of conservation and the liberals who want to shut it all down simply piggyback off of the money we spend each year. The TRUE problem is the government can't figure out a way to force the buy in of the general public. I'd love to see a 'hiking license' that must be purchased to mountain bike, hike or camp. A problem with this idea is that by including the majority into such a scheme you are going INCREASE visibility on how and where that money is being spent and let's be honest the lawmakers and beancounters really don't want a bigger magnifying glass than they are already under. 

 

If there is some weird legality where such a stamp must be 'voluntary' then I would say go to a split draw style system similar to Wyoming-- don't do it for all the hunts, exclude sheep and maybe certain trophy units for specific species... but for the opportunity level hunts- maybe split them into two pools-- 60% of the tags are allocated to the normal bonus pass style draw and 40% are allocated to the "special draw" and in order to be entered into that year's special draw you pay the normal entry fee plus you must buy a DRAW STAMP specific to that species for that year and it costs $100-300 dollars extra depending on the species.  This would keep it voluntary, it would not force everyone to buy a stamp, especially if it is a year you aren't planning to draw... and if gives folks willing to pay an extra bump. That way if you decide this is the year you are swinging on a hunt you can chip in the extra cash and better your odds.  AND- it doesn't change anything for nonresidents- still a max of 10% with 5% going to max point holders-- whether that 10% comes out of the regular or special draw it doesn't matter.

 

 

[Umpqua]

This morning I became aware of the Super Bonus Point proposal.  This was my comment online to AZGFD on the proposal:  

"BONUS POINT" BACKGROUND:  During a 1986 hunt, my guide expressed an idea for a draw system that gave applicants increased draw odds after each unsuccessful year of applying.  In 1988, I drafted a letter and sent it to most of the western fish and game departments, including Arizona.  In that letter, I described the concept and actually coined the term "bonus point".  I received letters back from New Mexico, Oregon, Idaho, Colorado, Nevada and Oregon. In 1991, Arizona adopted the bonus point system.  Nevada and Utah have as well.

As a nonresident of Arizona, I have accrued max deer points (22 points), one less than max for antelope and sheep (29 points) and 20 points for elk, so I have been INVESTING in AZGFD's bonus point system for nearly 30 YEARS and am on the verge of enjoying the fruit of that long term investment.  Since I don't hunt Arizona on years I don't draw, the thousands of dollars of hunting license and application fees have been paid strictly towards future tag opportunities.  I have even flown down to Arizona to take Hunters Safety.

If a "super bonus point" option is only allowed for ONE SPECIE and those points are retained until drawn, I will be forced to choose which of these four species to move forward on and which three to leave behind.  It will DEVALUE a point system people have ALREADY INVESTED in!  It will most deeply affect those who have invested the longest.  I hope AZGFD sees the ethical and legal problems with this. 

This would not be the first time AZGFD has devalued points.  With the recent change to nonresident tag allocation (5% cap in the bonus pass), my "certainty" of drawing certain tags in my lifetime (13B AZ Strip rifle deer for example) has already vanished.  That change has already devalued the investment of long term nonresident applicants.  The new "super bonus point" (for one specie) proposal would again further damage that investment for residents and nonresidents alike.

For me the problem compounds.  As a divorced parent, I have been buying licenses and around 20 points each year for my six children for the past 14 YEARS to eventually create hunt opportunities and memories with them.  I have also been applying my wife for the past 9 years.  Our family is on the verge of several high quality hunt opportunities that we have ALREADY MADE a huge financial investment towards.  The "super bonus point" proposal could threaten the investment by forcing us choose a single specie to move forward on. 

Actually, I am not opposed to paying slightly more (say $10 per applicant per year) to help with AZGFD's funding through some method, but please make certain that any adopted plan does not DEVALUE THE INVESTMENT ALREADY MADE by your most LOYAL and LONG TERM customers.

Here is the way I look at it.  Imagine if an investment company offered a retirement savings plan, and drew customers into that plan with certain future expectations.  Then 20 or 30 years down the road, just as people began to reach retirement and enjoying their investment, the company cut the benefits down to a fraction of what was originally offered. That would not only be unethical, but likely illegal. 

I entered AZGFD's bonus point offering with my eyes open to the investment I was making, and under the ground rules laid out by you.  Please to not devalue that investment nearly 30 years down the road.

[Big Browns]

Well said Umpqua!