Is IT Time To Eliminate OIL Tag Auctions?

[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. 

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.

I think touting benefits of programs supported by auction tag money is a false/misleading narrative...

As far as how the money is used from these raffles/auctions...no doubt they at least try to put it to good use.  And if you asked someone at WDFW they would probably mention various habitat improvements, access increase...all things that benefit the average sportsmen.  This at minimum implies if the auctions/raffles go away, we would lose habitat/access etc.  The reality is, if the agency (which has an annual budget in the hundreds of millions per year) suggests we are 400 or 500k per year from losing really important actions/programs that benefit sportsmen...they are out of their minds. Cut a few travel days per year from the staff and other things that amount to budget dust and there is your 400 or 500k.

[Jpmiller]

I don't see the auction raffle tags being different than master hunter or other such special priveledge tags. Anyone can purchase an auction tag just like anyone can buy raffle tags just like anyone can buy an over the counter tag. It may not be economically feasible for you, me or most of the population of the state but it is open to us to participate.

I didn't get placed in a job where my salary and ability to further myself was predetermined​ by an outside entity  completely outside of my control so if I cannot afford the auction tag that's on me.

I don't think we need to change the system because of bad press from things like the Bullwinkle case either. I sat in a traffic backup this morning on my way to work but I bet the bad press from that doesn't cause them to shut down the freeways for everyone. People poach animals every year with OTC tags, hope they don't shut those down too so hunters stop getting bad press.

[pianoman9701]

They are different. Anyone can be a Master Hunter or a Hunter Ed instructor, regardless of income. Few can afford to pay $50K or more for a tag. See the difference? Start another thread if you don't like incentive tags. Why is it so hard to understand that?

[pianoman9701]

Here's the link for whether or not we should eliminate incentive tags. http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,211534.msg2815661/topicseen.html#msg2815661

[Jpmiller]

They are different. Anyone can be a Master Hunter or a Hunter Ed instructor, regardless of income. Few can afford to pay $50K or more for a tag. See the difference? Start another thread if you don't like incentive tags. Why is it so hard to understand that?

Income and income potential is determined by the individual just the same as the ability to become a master hunter is. Most the hunters I know (myself included) don't the education, don't have the work ethic, made poor choices when we were younger, or simply won't take the risks required for a higher income. The state doesn't deem people ineligible for the auction or raffle tags we are making ourselves ineligible.

[pianoman9701]

Please comment on the other thread. This thread is only about the auction tags.

[huntnphool]

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.

+1

[Wacenturion]

One thing that drives my opinion on ending these auction tags - they are so valuable because of the very tight restrictions placed on all the average sportsmen.  So few branch bull tags are given out in many areas that it creates a very good trophy opportunity.  Imagine if we decided to open up many of these eastside units to any bull, and long seasons...what would that eastside elk tag go for then? Because the wildlife is owned by the people of the state, if the people decide to limit/restrict their harvest - they should have an equal shot at getting ANY of the limited opportunities which might exist.  This would, in my view, preclude selling tags to the highest bidder. 

As far as how the money is used from these raffles/auctions...no doubt they at least try to put it to good use.  And if you asked someone at WDFW they would probably mention various habitat improvements, access increase...all things that benefit the average sportsmen.  This at minimum implies if the auctions/raffles go away, we would lose habitat/access etc. The reality is, if the agency (which has an annual budget in the hundreds of millions per year) suggests we are 400 or 500k per year from losing really important actions/programs that benefit sportsmen...they are out of their minds. Cut a few travel days per year from the staff and other things that amount to budget dust and there is your 400 or 500k.

Habitat development and public access of any real significance doesn't exist at WDFW.  So I can tell you that's not the result of these monies being spent.  During the 90's there was a major thrust regarding habitat and species enhancement as well as hunter access.  There were several smaller program efforts, no less important, such as the turkey progam that provides opportunity today. 

That program was without a doubt the most active on the ground wildlife program in the nation bar none.  However reorganization within WDFW killed that effort as it tended to expose "go to meeting" biologists who always had excuses for why things could not be done.

I'll provide an example of what is not now being done.  In 1992 the program I mentioned above rolled into Omak and spent the week with staff and equipment to re-establih critical sharptailed grouse habitat at the Scotch Creek Wildlife Area.  The grouse were almost non existent at that point and there was very little if any suitable habitat left in the respective reparian zone.

At the end of the week the planting were finished and nature took over.  In the years following the water birch that the grouse roost in and associated shrub plantings flourished.  Eventually additional sharptails were released to supplement the native birds, giving them a genetic boost in my opinion.  Fast forward 25 years and look at the photo below which only shows a relatively small portion of what now exists habitat wise.  Notice those dark objects in the water birch trees?  We now have a healty sharptail population as well as every other species that uses the area.  Time is critical to replace and grow habitat that has been lost.  Somehow that has always equated with too much work and not enough instant gradification for many at WDFW over the years.  Sad, but true. 


So in summary, if WDFW taunts wonderful habitat and access enhancements from those dollars, beware, it's most likely BS.  My guess is a good portion is spread across administration lines for staff salaries and expenses related to specific species.     

[Sitka_Blacktail]

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.

Maybe you can show us the overall benefits that have accrued to the average hunter since the auction tags went into effect? You know, like how the hunter success rate has gone up? How there is more hunting access available. How seasons are getting longer.

[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.

Maybe you can show us the overall benefits that have accrued to the average hunter since the auction tags went into effect? You know, like how the hunter success rate has gone up? How there is more hunting access available. How seasons are getting longer.

I can't, and without a foia request I wouldn't even be able to cite specifics. I think this state is one of the most difficult states to manage (Not saying they have done a good job) especially with the pie shrinking continuously.  Add in lack of predator management  (blame the voters) and major changes in land management and the equation gets tougher.  Maybe some of the NGO's that are the facilitators and lobby for these tags can weigh in with some facts.