Is IT Time To Eliminate OIL Tag Auctions?

[trophyhunt]

 

I know people who will not buy the special raffle anymore.
Besides a very small % most of the raffles are won by the person who "buys the raffle" so to speak.
I would bet that the state would make more money if they had a reasonable cap . Maybe limit it to 30 for example. I bet more people would participate that way. Rather than the guy with the most money waiting to the last day to see how many he has to buy to put the odds in his favor because there is no cap.

30 sounds about right.

[JDHasty]

I know people who will not buy the special raffle anymore.
Besides a very small % most of the raffles are won by the person who "buys the raffle" so to speak.
I would bet that the state would make more money if they had a reasonable cap . Maybe limit it to 30 for example. I bet more people would participate that way. Rather than the guy with the most money waiting to the last day to see how many he has to buy to put the odds in his favor because there is no cap.

30 sounds about right.

I think so too

[pianoman9701]

I am squarely in the "FOR" category with these auctions and raffles.  I just don't see the down side to a few high dollar opportunities for folks who are willing to pay the price.  I know it ruffles some people's feather to think a rich guy is going to get over on them, but let's be honest.  That guy brings some things to the conservation discussion that you and I don't.  The crowd that the CEO type associates with is not typically a pro hunting crowd, but they are without question a politically active group.  You and I will never be able to express an opinion to them simply because we don't have the access.  The wealthy hunter who buys that ticket can, and often does profess his support for hunting in those high money crowds.  That goes a long way.   The second tangible that comes from these hunts is the ability to keep access where it is easily taken from working hunters.  The same money that buys a rich guy access to trophy game also keeps that access available to everyone else.

Point 1: Surely you're not implying that because a politically active rich guy doesn't get to buy a tag, he's going to turn his back on hunting and conservation? Regardless of his money, even if he did turn his back on hunting and conservation, he's not going to be able to hurt hunting because he's mad at losing his personal tag. I don't care how politically connected he is, he's not going to get anti-hunting laws passed because he doesn't get his way. His representative might support him but no one else's would.
Point 2: That same money could be raised with a lottery for those choice Governor's tags. But instead, everyone gets a chance. The access you speak of isn't currently available to everyone.

Look, I base my opinion on the North American Model. If someone gets to buy better hunting opportunities than I because he's rich and I'm not, that's in direct opposition to the model and that the wildlife belongs to everyone.

I am not implying anything.  I simply state that a person with the resources to purchase a 75K tag can do it here or anywhere he chooses.  I prefer he spend his money here and that he uses the experience that tag brought him to help shape and influence his political and conservation activities here.  If you have some insight into how thesehunters ewither do or don't promote hunting in Washington then please share it with us. 

Secondly if he chooses to speak kindly of his Washington hunting experience with his influential circle of friends and politicians then by all means, do so.  I would rather see some Seattle money going to Washington Elk conservation than I would African big game hunting or as is more often the case going directly against WA. hunters.

I understand your point of view, I don't agree with it but I understand it.  I think you and I often come down on opposite sides of arguments concerning access and pay to play.  My prospective is the North American game model is pretty much a joke.  Wild game belongs to the state and the ownership remains at that level, only passed to the hunter by license.  Essentially the notion that "we" own the game is a comforting philosophy, but not a true conservation measure or legal reality.   

   

I have no problem with our differences which result always in civil discourse.  Knowing I'm always on the right side of the discussion helps, too! 

Hunting in the US is far different than hunting in Europe because of the model. It's not affected by semantics; whether the ownership is of the state or the people. The people are the state and we're able to affect our wildlife laws, either through legislative review or the initiative process. Regulation was demanded by the people and the state was appointed steward over those regulations and the management of wildlife by the people for the benefit of the people. If the state goes too far, the people can act to change. This is evident recently in the budgeting process and hearings to establish the need for license fee increases. The responses from the citizens have had a great impact on our legislators in making their decision. It's not a joke and it is practiced. And, there are ways the model can be more firmly supported. IMHO, taking tags reserved for the rich only and offering them in a lottery is one of those ways.

[Tbar]

A normal person has to wait something like 20 years (20 points) to draw a tag that will likely be OIL in the more coveted regions and about 10 years (points) for other quality bull tags.  Given the poor odds, it does seem like those tags would be better off tossed in the draw.  But realistically, it would only account for another 10 or so elk, with 50% success, maybe 20 additional tags.

It could be that the funds generated from auction and raffle sales, if used appropriately could increase the number of animals available and thus the number of permits available in the general draws.

This is the point of view that I feel is the most important.  These tags are a deviation/ contradiction of the model, the caveat being, do they benefit the model? Either tag is not designed to create equity. My personal opinion of the way Washington runs this program varies sometimes by the day. One thing I do see that is not good is divisiveness and the results are catastrophic to the outdoor heritage and hunting in general. I see it just about every year.  The more we silo ourselves  and create lines of separation the success of the model or deviations like this matter less and less. 

[JDHasty]

A normal person has to wait something like 20 years (20 points) to draw a tag that will likely be OIL in the more coveted regions and about 10 years (points) for other quality bull tags.  Given the poor odds, it does seem like those tags would be better off tossed in the draw.  But realistically, it would only account for another 10 or so elk, with 50% success, maybe 20 additional tags.

It could be that the funds generated from auction and raffle sales, if used appropriately could increase the number of animals available and thus the number of permits available in the general draws.

This is the point of view that I feel is the most important.  These tags are a deviation/ contradiction of the model, the caveat being, do they benefit the model? Either tag is not designed to create equity. My personal opinion of the way Washington runs this program varies sometimes by the day. One thing I do see that is not good is divisiveness and the results are catastrophic to the outdoor heritage and hunting in general. I see it just about every year.  The more we silo ourselves  and create lines of separation the success of the model or deviations like this matter less and less. 

I agree.  I have personal acquaintance with individuals who can afford to do so who have made great contributions to various wildlife conservation efforts and some of these individuals have participated in the Tag Auctions.  Some of these people contribute two or more times what they pay out for these tags and outside of their immediate circle of friends and family these contributions are pretty much unknown.  To take this away because of the abuses perpetrated by a relative few who are only there to buy a hunt seems unfair to me.  But I will tell you that the abuses that happen some days really make me wonder if these programs are a net positive or not. 

[Tbar]

I know people who will not buy the special raffle anymore.
Besides a very small % most of the raffles are won by the person who "buys the raffle" so to speak.
I would bet that the state would make more money if they had a reasonable cap . Maybe limit it to 30 for example. I bet more people would participate that way. Rather than the guy with the most money waiting to the last day to see how many he has to buy to put the odds in his favor because there is no cap.

The system is not designed for equity.  Any number is arbitrary, 30 its not fair to the guy who can only afford 5. They end goal is to create a funding mechanism for species specific conservation, wether that be a raffle system with a cap or a defacto auction. Differentiating between the two or finding the tipping point would require a bunch of statistical analysis along with a fair amount of trial and error I'm sure.  I like the idea of beating the odds and "having a chance " in the raffles.

[JKEEN33]

Your arguments are the same I use for instructor, master hunter etc.. draws. One pool of tags that all compete in is my preference. If you want to buy a hunt, go hunt the farms.

It's different because you don't have to be rich to become a MH or Hunter Ed instructor. Anyone can. You just have to have the commitment to do so and do the work required. We don't have enough instructors for students now. If you eliminate the incentive permits for Hunter Education, we'll lose some of them and that means a drop in new hunter participation overall - bad thing. The same goes for the MH program and volunteerism. Right now, MHs contribute a minimum of 16,000 hours per year of volunteer conservation work, and the actual figure is much higher than the minimum. If you eliminate those incentives, we would lose some - bad thing. How would you replace those volunteer hours? I personally don't care about the tags and haven't been chosen for either of the two damage hunts that I've drawn - there are no guarantees. I would do the program without them. But the hours are contributing to our abundant wildlife and it costs the state little or nothing to get those hours. This should be a different topic. It has nothing to do with how rich you are.

Using this argument we could say all tags should be sold to the highest bidder and then we can pay volunteers with cash. payment is exactly what these additional opportunities are. You want to penalize certain individuals that contribute cash -vs- time?

It's a different topic. Go ahead and start one. This topic is about auction/Governor's tags.

Not really, my point is any group that pulls tags from the general pool is reducing opportunity from the average hunter.  But we can see how the don't touch " my groups tags" works. Absolutely would love to see it go with all other one off drawings.

[NOCK NOCK]

I am squarely in the "FOR" category with these auctions and raffles.  I just don't see the down side to a few high dollar opportunities for folks who are willing to pay the price.  I know it ruffles some people's feather to think a rich guy is going to get over on them, but let's be honest.  That guy brings some things to the conservation discussion that you and I don't.  The crowd that the CEO type associates with is not typically a pro hunting crowd, but they are without question a politically active group.  You and I will never be able to express an opinion to them simply because we don't have the access.  The wealthy hunter who buys that ticket can, and often does profess his support for hunting in those high money crowds.  That goes a long way.   The second tangible that comes from these hunts is the ability to keep access where it is easily taken from working hunters.  The same money that buys a rich guy access to trophy game also keeps that access available to everyone else.

Point 1: Surely you're not implying that because a politically active rich guy doesn't get to buy a tag, he's going to turn his back on hunting and conservation? Regardless of his money, even if he did turn his back on hunting and conservation, he's not going to be able to hurt hunting because he's mad at losing his personal tag. I don't care how politically connected he is, he's not going to get anti-hunting laws passed because he doesn't get his way. His representative might support him but no one else's would.
Point 2: That same money could be raised with a lottery for those choice Governor's tags. But instead, everyone gets a chance. The access you speak of isn't currently available to everyone.

Look, I base my opinion on the North American Model. If someone gets to buy better hunting opportunities than I because he's rich and I'm not, that's in direct opposition to the model and that the wildlife belongs to everyone.

I am not implying anything.  I simply state that a person with the resources to purchase a 75K tag can do it here or anywhere he chooses.  I prefer he spend his money here and that he uses the experience that tag brought him to help shape and influence his political and conservation activities here. If you have some insight into how these hunters either do or don't promote hunting in Washington then please share it with us. 

Secondly if he chooses to speak kindly of his Washington hunting experience with his influential circle of friends and politicians then by all means, do so.  I would rather see some Seattle money going to Washington Elk conservation than I would African big game hunting or as is more often the case going directly against WA. hunters.

I understand your point of view, I don't agree with it but I understand it.  I think you and I often come down on opposite sides of arguments concerning access and pay to play.  My prospective is the North American game model is pretty much a joke.  Wild game belongs to the state and the ownership remains at that level, only passed to the hunter by license.  Essentially the notion that "we" own the game is a comforting philosophy, but not a true conservation measure or legal reality.   

   

I would like to ask you..... How did TR's fiasco HELP the image of hunting?


However one wants to interpret it, animals are "public" property, selling them to the select few is, and will always be, questionable.

[pianoman9701]

Your arguments are the same I use for instructor, master hunter etc.. draws. One pool of tags that all compete in is my preference. If you want to buy a hunt, go hunt the farms.

It's different because you don't have to be rich to become a MH or Hunter Ed instructor. Anyone can. You just have to have the commitment to do so and do the work required. We don't have enough instructors for students now. If you eliminate the incentive permits for Hunter Education, we'll lose some of them and that means a drop in new hunter participation overall - bad thing. The same goes for the MH program and volunteerism. Right now, MHs contribute a minimum of 16,000 hours per year of volunteer conservation work, and the actual figure is much higher than the minimum. If you eliminate those incentives, we would lose some - bad thing. How would you replace those volunteer hours? I personally don't care about the tags and haven't been chosen for either of the two damage hunts that I've drawn - there are no guarantees. I would do the program without them. But the hours are contributing to our abundant wildlife and it costs the state little or nothing to get those hours. This should be a different topic. It has nothing to do with how rich you are.

Using this argument we could say all tags should be sold to the highest bidder and then we can pay volunteers with cash. payment is exactly what these additional opportunities are. You want to penalize certain individuals that contribute cash -vs- time?

It's a different topic. Go ahead and start one. This topic is about auction/Governor's tags.

Not really, my point is any group that pulls tags from the general pool is reducing opportunity from the average hunter.  But we can see how the don't touch " my groups tags" works. Absolutely would love to see it go with all other one off drawings.

Everyone can join those groups. So no, it doesn't take opportunities away from the average hunter. Just because someone chooses not to doesn't mean they don't have the same opportunities as everyone else. If you want to hunt in WA, you have to take hunter education. If someone wants to hunt in WA but doesn't want to take hunter education, they can't hunt. Same exact thing. I personally don't take part in either group for the "bennies", but if those bennies help retain and promote membership, then it's good for our wildlife and hunter base. Please, this is a different topic. I won't respond again.

[DOUBLELUNG]

I would end the auctioning of tags.  It is doing the wrong thing for well-intentioned reasons IMHO.  If a population cannot sustain general season hunting, then the limited number of tags available should be offered in a random drawing.  WDFW should meet its needs for game management funding through the revenues from hunting licenses and special permit applications. 

[nwhunter]

So I assume everyone who supports getting rid of the auction tags also supports  getting rid of the incentive tags that are given out to a lucky few at no cost...? Same arguments can be with those tags that could also be in the general draw. If its all about increasing draw odds, eliminating those tags isn't going to help much at all . Having to pick your species and one hunt choice only, would however make a difference in my opinion.... If its about getting tags away from the hunters who have more money to spend on hunting than most of us, well thats a different argument.

[Wacenturion]

I would end the auctioning of tags.  It is doing the wrong thing for well-intentioned reasons IMHO.  If a population cannot sustain general season hunting, then the limited number of tags available should be offered in a random drawing.  WDFW should meet its needs for game management funding through the revenues from hunting licenses and special permit applications.

I would completely agree with your statement.  I would also question what real positives actually resulted from those increased revenues.  One other needed change is to make it one choice and one choice only for any permit applications as far as unit or area one puts in for.  WDFW should even change the elk eastside/westside choice.  State (not WDFW) losing revenue on that policy.

 

[pianoman9701]

So I assume everyone who supports getting rid of the auction tags also supports  getting rid of the incentive tags that are given out to a lucky few at no cost...? Same arguments can be with those tags that could also be in the general draw. If its all about increasing draw odds, eliminating those tags isn't going to help much at all . Having to pick your species and one hunt choice only, would however make a difference in my opinion.... If its about getting tags away from the hunters who have more money to spend on hunting than most of us, well thats a different argument.

Read above. Already had that discussion. Start a new thread. Thanks.

[idahohuntr]

So I assume everyone who supports getting rid of the auction tags also supports  getting rid of the incentive tags that are given out to a lucky few at no cost...? Same arguments can be with those tags that could also be in the general draw. If its all about increasing draw odds, eliminating those tags isn't going to help much at all . Having to pick your species and one hunt choice only, would however make a difference in my opinion.... If its about getting tags away from the hunters who have more money to spend on hunting than most of us, well thats a different argument.

I have no problem with the incentive tags...that is an example of a public resource being available to all who report harvest on time.  We've all got a shot at those tags.  The opposition to auction tags has nothing to do with improving drawing odds; nor does it have anything to do with taking tags away from rich people - it's about not allowing state agencies (e.g., WDFW) to deviate from the NAMWC simply to increase their budgets...even if the money is used for worthy efforts. 

[Tbar]

So I assume everyone who supports getting rid of the auction tags also supports  getting rid of the incentive tags that are given out to a lucky few at no cost...? Same arguments can be with those tags that could also be in the general draw. If its all about increasing draw odds, eliminating those tags isn't going to help much at all . Having to pick your species and one hunt choice only, would however make a difference in my opinion.... If its about getting tags away from the hunters who have more money to spend on hunting than most of us, well thats a different argument.

I have no problem with the incentive tags...that is an example of a public resource being available to all who report harvest on time.  We've all got a shot at those tags.  The opposition to auction tags has nothing to do with improving drawing odds; nor does it have anything to do with taking tags away from rich people - it's about not allowing state agencies (e.g., WDFW) to deviate from the NAMWC simply to increase their budgets...even if the money is used for worthy efforts. 

What if the worthy efforts benefit overall opportunities to all? I question how far this state has taken that ideology and also wonder if the deviation is worth it.