AZGFD Dec 7th Commission Meeting - Education Funding

[stanley]

Anyone else listen/view the live stream or attend in person?  I was multi-tasking a bit here at work, and was able to listen to the brief chat regarding funding for an education program.  Frankly, there wasn't much discussion.  They briefly chatted about whether auction or raffle tags was contrary to the North American model.  Commissioner Davis pretty quickly squashed that, and the discussion moved more towards simply; 'What is a more viable way to make money for education programs - auctions vs. raffles'.

Based on the commentary, it appeared clear to me that the commissioners are VERY much leaning towards one or the other to fund the education programs.  They passed a motion to form a committee/work-group to study the current auction/raffle system, get input from 'raffle experts', and determine which would be the best way to raise money.  Sounded to me like it is a foregone conclusion that they are going to do this, the question is simply whether it will be through expanded auctions or raffles (Disclaimer;  I was actually working, so I very well might have missed something.  I would encourage folks to listen to the recording for themselves...).

Was anyone else there or listening that heard something different???

S.

Edit:  I was wrong in my summary above.   Have stricken my incorrect statements.

 

 

 

 

[bassinix]

1st of all, the raffle tag vs. auction tag had nothing to do with funding an education program. 2nd of all, Commissioner Davis didn't squash anything, he brought up the discussion. And thirdly, it wasn't a brief discussion, it went on for 30 minutes. If you're going to chime in about what happened at least be accurate. It's 2pm, and they're just now getting to the agenda item regarding public awareness/education funding. 

[stanley]

21 minutes ago, bassinix said:

1st of all, the raffle tag vs. auction tag had nothing to do with funding an education program. 2nd of all, Commissioner Davis didn't squash anything, he brought up the discussion. And thirdly, it wasn't a brief discussion, it went on for 30 minutes. If you're going to chime in about what happened at least be accurate. It's 2pm, and they're just now getting to the agenda item regarding public awareness/education funding. 

Thanks for the input.  I've been juggling work and trying to listen in where I can.   (Sorry if I wasn't accurate enough for you.  You'll notice above that I disclaimed my input and specifically said I might have missed something...  )   That being said, I apparently missed the point of agenda item number 11, and thought they were talking about it in the context of raising funds for education.  I made the mistake of that assumption based on the fact that auction and/or raffle tags were put on the table for an option for revenue for education.  I stand corrected.

I just started listening again (They are on the Enhanced Bonus Point discussion right now....).

 

[jim]

Another one of the tag mob monitoring the site so they can bash our members. Awesome

[stanley]

The commission voted to have the department move forward with next steps on the idea of a 'preferred/enhance bonus point' system to help fund public awareness and education.  There were apparently a couple of variations of this idea on the table, but I couldn't read the slide well enough to tell the difference.   Davis was the sole dissenter, with the rest of the commission voting to move forward.  Though there was not 100% agreement to move forward (as indicated by Davis voting no), all seemed to agree with the sentiment that there must be forward movement on the topic of funding for public awareness and education.

bassinix, any further clarification?  As mentioned before, I'm at work and may not have heard it all correctly.....

[bassinix]

They voted to move forward with the next step of further research and dialing in of the enhanced bonus point system. The final version won't take long, nor will it change much. It will probably go for final approval as early as January. The end result will hopefully be: hunters will be able to add an additional bonus point for a fee with every application, completely voluntary. Not required to apply for a hunt. If you draw then great. If you don't, sorry sad news but you lose the super point and can buy it again next year. Commissioner Davis' issue with it is that if you don't buy the point at time of application, you don't have as good a chance at drawing a tag. Therefore, everyone will feel they HAVE TO buy the additional point, therefore it will essentially not be discretionary or optional, it will essentially be mandatory. Of course an extra point theoretically increases draw odds, but we all know the stories of guys drawing sheep and premium elk tags with zero points. heck I had a buddy draw a bull buffalo tag this year with only 2 points. So Davis' reservations cast doubt among the commission and ALMOST caused the proposal to not move forward. Zeiler reigned in control, Commissioner Brake made the motion to move forward with the next step of the enhanced bonus point, it was seconded, and approved 4 to 1 with the no vote coming from Davis. 

[bassinix]

2 hours ago, jim said:

Another one of the tag mob monitoring the site so they can bash our members. Awesome

There's no tag mob, and if there was, I'm certainly not one of them. People continue to say TAG GRAB when that's never been a valid option being pursued by the Commission on the table anyhow. 

[Ringer]

Did they ever consider a habitat stamp for $5 a year? It would raise a ton of money, not hurt the average hunter and keep creeps like Cimellero aways from getting anything else to mess with our system.

[bassinix]

2 hours ago, stanley said:

Thanks for the input.  I've been juggling work and trying to listen in where I can.   (Sorry if I wasn't accurate enough for you.  You'll notice above that I disclaimed my input and specifically said I might have missed something...  )   That being said, I apparently missed the point of agenda item number 11, and thought they were talking about it in the context of raising funds for education.  I made the mistake of that assumption based on the fact that auction and/or raffle tags were put on the table for an option for revenue for education.  I stand corrected.

I just started listening again (They are on the Enhanced Bonus Point discussion right now....).

 

Stanley, I appreciate the correction. Good integrity there sir. The pursuit of whether funding raised by auction tags vs. raffle tags is a touchy and dangerous subject. The president of the Big Game Super raffle proposed a 2nd super raffle every year, and only 1 tag of each species going to the critter groups for auction. I think that's potentially devastating. But, it would mean only 1 Commissioner elk tag, deer tag, sheep tag etc would exist for live auction. Could that now mean a deer tag goes for $450k instead of 2 at $150k each? Same for an elk tag? Could it drive the value up on each, while generating another $700,000 from a 2nd super raffle? Hard to say, but it would be a dangerous chance to take, and could backfire if the 1 Commissioner tag sells for it's normal average amount and not more. Then we've REDUCED the money going into the Habitat Partnership Committee.  

[trphyhntr]

an optional bonus point that we have to buy if want to get drawn. kinda sounds like extortion 

[bassinix]

1 minute ago, Ringer said:

Did they ever consider a habitat stamp for $5 a year? It would raise a ton of money, not hurt the average hunter and keep creeps like Cimellero aways from getting anything else to mess with our system.

Nope, that's off the table. The public awareness/education plan has to be funded with voluntary/discretionary money. Period. A mandatory stamp would generate revenue, but by law, that money couldn't be used for the outreach. A voluntary stamp has been tried over and over again around the country, and it never generates enough money to even cover the cost of administering the stamp program itself. Stamps are out, even Commissioner Brake gave up in the stamp and bumper sticker idea. 

[bassinix]

Just now, trphyhntr said:

an optional bonus point that we have to buy if want to get drawn. kinda sounds like extortion 

But you don't have to buy it, do the research and see if buying that point gets you in the max point pass...if so you wouldn't spend $20 to get that early archery bull tag? If it doesn't get you in the max points pass, then don't buy it and your odds really don't change that much anyhow. 

[trphyhntr]

2 minutes ago, bassinix said:

 it never generates enough money to even cover the cost of administering the stamp program itself 

what percentage of the funds go to administration vs what goes into the education

[trphyhntr]

1 minute ago, bassinix said:

But you don't have to buy it, do the research and see if buying that point gets you in the max point pass...if so you wouldn't spend $20 to get that early archery bull tag? If it doesn't get you in the max points pass, then don't buy it and your odds really don't change that much anyhow. 

i dont have to buy it if i like to bite my nose to spite my face 

[bassinix]

7 minutes ago, trphyhntr said:

what percentage of the funds go to administration vs what goes into the education

I don't honestly know, I just know the depressing numbers that came from Utah, Oregon and Alaska saying a "voluntary stamp" has completely flopped. Side note, the AZGFD has already started a program for those wanting to help fund an education program, it's a Conservation Membership. It has 2 levels. $35 per year, and $100 per year. They've sold 4 whole memberships in the 3 weeks it's been out. Most hunters have to get something in return for their donation. That much is sure. Be it a raffle ticket for optics, or a gun, or whatever. A monthly magazine, a calendar, and a weekly email isn't enough incentive to get hunters to buy a membership like this. Tie super bonus points to it, and it will sell.