WDFW Points Bank Bill

[WA_BnC_OM]

Please support our “WDFW” Points Bank Bill.

This grass roots bill would allow a hunter who has invested in the WDFW Big Game lottery "special permit drawing” system to list beneficiaries for a once in a life time, due to disability, or by death transfer of their points collected in the lottery system. Why are we currently allowing the state to make off with our hard earned investments if we die? Insurance companies, Investment companies and Banks are regulated for this but the State can just walk away free and clear.

Contact your local legislatures and make some noise!

[Bigshooter]

This is something that I would not support.  It is a lottery system not an insurance company.

[bobcat]

I agree with bigshooter. This is not what we need, even more complications added to an already complicated point sytem.

[WA_BnC_OM]

It is not complicated at all. It is our right. The state already tracks everyone's points. When I die, I want to pass on my legacy and give my kids an opportunity that I have invested a lifetime in. It is not just a lottery. What lottery gives you quantitative points when you gamble your money away? If you want to give yours away, I'll take it!

[billythekidrock]

I am on the fence on this as I do see value in the money and time spent on "points" but I also believe it is the luck of the draw and it would make it much harder for any new applicants to get drawn.

I doubt I would support it and won't contacting anyone at this time.

[DOUBLELUNG]

Not for me.  Too many people would list the Agnews of the world for ... the goodness of their hearts!  Let's not turn the drawings into another auction.

[billythekidrock]

Not for me.  Too many people would list the Agnews of the world for ... the goodness of their hearts!  Let's not turn the drawings into another auction.

 

I didn't even think about that. I am not on the fence anymore. I would not support this.
I can just hear it now.  "But I don't have any family members that hunt. Can I pass my points on to..?" As money is passed from one to the other. Nope, not a good idea.

[Skyvalhunter]

I would agree with it if it were passed on to ones immediate relative. Especially if a guy ended up with a terminal disease and he wanted to pass on his dream hunt to a family member.

[grundy53]

Not for me.  Too many people would list the Agnews of the world for ... the goodness of their hearts!  Let's not turn the drawings into another auction.

 
Beside as the op stated we've invested our hard earned money and time into this, and I feel everyone else should have to also. I like it the way it is with an even playing field.

[JKEEN33]

Not for me. Solution is don't die before you get drawn.

[jackelope]

Not for me either.

It is not complicated at all. It is our right.

Why do you say it's our right? We don't even have a "right" to hunt in this state. It is a priviledge.
This doesn't make any sense to me.

[YellowDog]

My view is you paid for the opportunity to draw a permit and when you are not drawn you are given a point.  Therefore you own the point(s).  They should be transferrable only upon death of the point holder.  I also would prefer to have them transferrable only to immediate family members.  I'm kind of surprised by the responses since we are paying for the system and for the so called game management in this state and most seem to think that our family members should not benefit from what we have paid. 

[Curly]

They need to do away with the damn point system anyway............   

[bobcat]

YellowDog- it wouldn't be fair, simple as that. A person should have to build up their own points. I think it's crazy to even consider that points be transferable. If they did to something like this it also would not be fair that the points only be transferred to family members. What if the person has no family member who could use the points? And how would the WDFW verify the beneficiary actually was a family member? As I said before, we don't need to make it more complicated than it already is.

[YellowDog]

YellowDog- it wouldn't be fair, simple as that. A person should have to build up their own points. I think it's crazy to even consider that points be transferable. If they did to something like this it also would not be fair that the points only be transferred to family members. What if the person has no family member who could use the points? And how would the WDFW verify the beneficiary actually was a family member? As I said before, we don't need to make it more complicated than it already is.

So its more fair for you to pay for something and never actually get anything in return?  Okay, your entitled to your opinion.  Wanna buy me something?  Maybe you could just give me $6 a year (times what is it now 13 different categories for deer and elk permits).  I promise I won't transfer it to anyone else and I will spend the money on myself.  I may have a different perspective than most because I work in the legal field administering estate's of people that have died.  Basically, my point is that if you pay a fee and receive something in return (points) you own them and you should decide what will happen to them when you die.  

[jackelope]

Here's the way I look at it.
I have 15 points....never drew my coveted Blues bull tag.
You have 10 points.
I die.
My kid gets my 15 points.
Now there's a kid ahead of you in the points pool thereby still killing your odds of drawing a tag. I understand it's my kid, but you're still down in the odds of drawing when you would have increased your odds when I died.
Fair is fair, and this ain't fair.

[bobcat]

YellowDog- it wouldn't be fair, simple as that. A person should have to build up their own points. I think it's crazy to even consider that points be transferable. If they did to something like this it also would not be fair that the points only be transferred to family members. What if the person has no family member who could use the points? And how would the WDFW verify the beneficiary actually was a family member? As I said before, we don't need to make it more complicated than it already is.

So its more fair for you to pay for something and never actually get anything in return?  Okay, your entitled to your opinion.  Wanna buy me something?  Maybe you could just give me $6 a year (times what is it now 13 different categories for deer and elk permits).  I promise I won't transfer it to anyone else and I will spend the money on myself.  I may have a different perspective than most because I work in the legal field administering estate's of people that have died.  Basically, my point is that if you pay a fee and receive something in return (points) you own them and you should decide what will happen to them when you die.  

You are getting something for your money every time you buy an application- you are getting a CHANCE of drawing a special permit hunt. The point you gained gives you better odds next time but you are not buying a point. This is just a ridiculous idea and I'm sure the WDFW would never consider it. Going through budget cuts right now and what do you think this would do? Maybe cost a lot of money to implement? I think so.

If they were to make points transferable it shouldn't only be when a person dies. They should be able to transfer them to anyone, at anytime. If they "own" the points then why not? And also, if you "own" the points, why not put them up for auction on eBay to the highest bidder?

See what I mean about complications?  

[YellowDog]

Do you get something back from the lotto when you buy a ticket? That's why I chose not to play the lotto!

No you don't get something back when you play the Lotto and that is exactly my point.  If you buy a Lotto ticket you are gambling.  If you enter the permit drawing you are both entering a raffle and buying a point in the event that you don't win the raffle.  You own the point, you bought it.  You did not only pay for the opportunity to be in the drawing, you paid ("bought") a point and you own it.  

[Elkaholic daWg]

Not for me either.

It is not complicated at all. It is our right.

Why do you say it's our right? We don't even have a "right" to hunt in this state. It is a priviledge.
This doesn't make any sense to me.

 So lets put our effort into fixing this one. then worry about points

[PolarBear]

I definitely won't support it.  I would love to be able to transfer my bonus points to my daughter but there is way too much room in this bill for corruption and abuse.  

[Alan K]

I'd help fill out all applications etc. (and pay for) all my non-hunter older relatives (born 1971 and earlier) to build ghost points.  They wouldn't have to do anything at all aside from leave them to my kids and I after they pass. 

I'd be rich with points!!! Yes please!

 

[YellowDog]

Not for me either.

It is not complicated at all. It is our right.

Why do you say it's our right? We don't even have a "right" to hunt in this state. It is a priviledge.
This doesn't make any sense to me.

 So lets put our effort into fixing this one. then worry about points

I agree, getting an amendment to our state constitution for the the right to hunt, as many other states have done recently, would be a much better use of our time.  For the record I am not actually "supporting" this bill I am simply saying that we are actually buying something more than the chance to enter the drawing and we should be treates as if we own the points.  If we own the points we should be able to transfer them at least on our death.  This is just one more example of our state taking our money and taking control of something we are paying for.  That is where the corruption is.

As for the fairness question, who really believes the system we have is fair?  If you are lucky enough to witness a poaching incident, call it in, get an officer to respond, catch the perp, get a prosecutor to get a convication, etc. you get 10 points.  You get a much better chance of drawing a tag for doing what you should be doing in the first place.  Fair??  I don't really think so.  Should you get a cash reward?  Maybe but why should you get to move to the front of the line in the drawing?  We all like to believe that because everyone is in the drawing and those with more points have their name in the drawing more times it is fair.  We have all heard the stories of people drawing the OIL permits with 0-3 points, drawing premium elk and deer permits year after year without building points, while the guy with 15 points gets nothing.  The truth is, the system we have is not fair so it is kind of comical to hear everyone saying ITS NOT FAIR when we are talking about something that you bought being controlled by the state.

[YellowDog]

I'd help fill out all applications etc. (and pay for) all my non-hunter older relatives (born 1971 and earlier) to build ghost points.  They wouldn't have to do anything at all aside from leave them to my kids and I after they pass. 

I'd be rich with points!!! Yes please!

 

You would be much better off hunting out of state.  It would cost you about $200 per person per year.  Paying that kind of money every year and waiting for those people to die wouldn't likely be a good investment.  You could spend the money much more wisely and actually get to hunt every few years. 

[bobcat]

It would be MORE unfair. Better?  

Here's the thing. Similar to what jackelope posted- if points were tranferred to a person's kids, grandkids, etc. at death, after a while the older guys who HAVE been applying for many years, would have a much reduced chance of drawing permits. Why make the odds worse for the older generation who MIGHT be able to draw that OIL permit before he's dead or too old to hunt? For the same reason, I don't agree with youth only permits for OIL species.

[jackelope]

As for the fairness question, who really believes the system we have is fair?  If you are lucky enough to witness a poaching incident, call it in, get an officer to respond, catch the perp, get a prosecutor to get a convication, etc. you get 10 points.  You get a much better chance of drawing a tag for doing what you should be doing in the first place.  Fair??  I don't really think so.  Should you get a cash reward?  Maybe but why should you get to move to the front of the line in the drawing?  We all like to believe that because everyone is in the drawing and those with more points have their name in the drawing more times it is fair.  We have all heard the stories of people drawing the OIL permits with 0-3 points, drawing premium elk and deer permits year after year without building points, while the guy with 15 points gets nothing.  The truth is, the system we have is not fair so it is kind of comical to hear everyone saying ITS NOT FAIR when we are talking about something that you bought being controlled by the state.

 

Whats the definition of fair?
I drew a great late quality muley permit this year with 4 points. Is that fair?
Yes and no. I think it's fair because it proves that anyone can draw a tag anytime. But I also think it's not fair because of the guys who put in for the permit I drew who had 10 or 12 or however many more points than I did.
I will put in for a buck(not quality) permit this year and have more than enough points to draw it based on the law of averages. I will have 2 great hunts back to back if I draw. Is that fair? What if I don't draw and someone with 2 points draws?
I see it all as fair as long as it's equal opportunity. This new proposal is not equal opportunity.

[Little Dave]

Mathematically, it wouldn't work.  Eventually, the only people drawn would be second or third generation participants in the drawing even without exponential weighting.  Also, the money is a same year commitment to the resource it is not a points investment.  The points program can end at any time without refund for your accumulation.  If points do have a value, you are required by law to report the capital gains, the difference between the price you paid and the fair market value of the points.  Let's not go there.

[Alan K]

You would be much better off hunting out of state.  It would cost you about $200 per person per year.  Paying that kind of money every year and waiting for those people to die wouldn't likely be a good investment.  You could spend the money much more wisely and actually get to hunt every few years.  

Wouldn't necessarily have to be all the different categories of every species.  Could be just the quality category points or OIL points.  Say I got all my remaining grandparents and great grandparents to put in for me and build points in all the quality and OIL categories who in all likely-hood don't have more than 10-15 years.  That's 5 people in 5 categories at $30 per person per year.  I'd gladly pay $1500 over 10 years to get (assuming 10 year average of putting in for me) 50 points in quality bull/buck and bull moose/goat/and ram sheep categories.

Still think it's cheaper to go out of state? Not a chance, you could hardly do a single species hunt in another state for that when you consider fuel and time off work, let alone non resident tag prices.

[YellowDog]

Jakalope and bobcat, I actually do not disagree with you.  My whole point is exactly what you are saying.  Everyone has a different idea of what "fair" is so in my opinion, the only "fair" way to go is to not have a points sytem at all.  Without a points system, everyone has exactly the same chance of drawing (roughly zero   percent).  Basically, we have been duped into the system that is inherently unfair because as we seem to agree, everyone has a different idea of what is fair so having a system like we have sucks the big one.  

I guess I'm sort of playing Devils Advocate and venting my frustration for being drawn for 2 elk and 1 deer permit since the system has been implemented when by the "law of averages" I should have been able to draw at least a couple more than that given what I have applied for.  Also, it really sucks for my disabled father who can't seem to draw a permit either with 7-8 points.  Its NOT FAIR  

[Alan K]

As for the fairness question, who really believes the system we have is fair?  If you are lucky enough to witness a poaching incident, call it in, get an officer to respond, catch the perp, get a prosecutor to get a convication, etc. you get 10 points.  You get a much better chance of drawing a tag for doing what you should be doing in the first place.  Fair??  I don't really think so.  Should you get a cash reward?  Maybe but why should you get to move to the front of the line in the drawing?  We all like to believe that because everyone is in the drawing and those with more points have their name in the drawing more times it is fair.  We have all heard the stories of people drawing the OIL permits with 0-3 points, drawing premium elk and deer permits year after year without building points, while the guy with 15 points gets nothing.  The truth is, the system we have is not fair so it is kind of comical to hear everyone saying ITS NOT FAIR when we are talking about something that you bought being controlled by the state.

If you're going out of your way to aid in stopping a poacher, who in all reality is not just a one time poacher, you're helping preserve the resource. I don't think it's unfair at all to give these people some kickback for helping save animals and busting a criminal.

And points aren't meant to be an end all be all, or the tags would simply go to those with the most points. This system gives those who have put in the longest a better chance than those who have put in for a shorter time, not necessarily guarantee them the tag.  That's the beauty of this state over max point states.  Our children are not screwed for ever drawing a premier tag.

[YellowDog]

You would be much better off hunting out of state.  It would cost you about $200 per person per year.  Paying that kind of money every year and waiting for those people to die wouldn't likely be a good investment.  You could spend the money much more wisely and actually get to hunt every few years.  

Wouldn't necessarily have to be all the different categories of every species.  Could be just the quality category points or OIL points.  Say I got all my remaining grandparents and great grandparents to put in for me and build points in all the quality and OIL categories who in all likely-hood don't have more than 10-15 years.  That's 5 people in 5 categories at $30 per person per year.  I'd gladly pay $1500 over 10 years to get (assuming 10 year average of putting in for me) 50 points in quality bull/buck and bull moose/goat/and ram sheep categories.

Still think it's cheaper to go out of state? Not a chance, you could hardly do a single species hunt in another state for that when you consider fuel and time off work, let alone non resident tag prices.

I think your math is wrong.  You have to buy the hunting license and tag BEFORE putting in for the permit so it is a lot more expensive than you think but that's okay.  Besides, you would have a better chance of drawing but you wouldn't be guaranteed a tag.  

[YellowDog]

As for the fairness question, who really believes the system we have is fair?  If you are lucky enough to witness a poaching incident, call it in, get an officer to respond, catch the perp, get a prosecutor to get a convication, etc. you get 10 points.  You get a much better chance of drawing a tag for doing what you should be doing in the first place.  Fair??  I don't really think so.  Should you get a cash reward?  Maybe but why should you get to move to the front of the line in the drawing?  We all like to believe that because everyone is in the drawing and those with more points have their name in the drawing more times it is fair.  We have all heard the stories of people drawing the OIL permits with 0-3 points, drawing premium elk and deer permits year after year without building points, while the guy with 15 points gets nothing.  The truth is, the system we have is not fair so it is kind of comical to hear everyone saying ITS NOT FAIR when we are talking about something that you bought being controlled by the state.

If you're going out of your way to aid in stopping a poacher, who in all reality is not just a one time poacher, you're helping preserve the resource. I don't think it's unfair at all to give these people some kickback for helping save animals and busting a criminal.

And points aren't meant to be an end all be all, or the tags would simply go to those with the most points. This system gives those who have put in the longest a better chance than those who have put in for a shorter time, not necessarily guarantee them the tag.  That's the beauty of this state over max point states.  Our children are not screwed for ever drawing a premier tag.

Like has been said before, everyone has a different idea of what is fair.  But do you agree that the MOST FAIR way would be to not have a point system at all?  If it is all about being FAIR then the points system should go away entirely.

[Caseyd]

Mathematically, it wouldn't work.  Eventually, the only people drawn would be second or third generation participants in the drawing even without exponential weighting.  Also, the money is a same year commitment to the resource it is not a points investment.  The points program can end at any time without refund for your accumulation.  If points do have a value, you are required by law to report the capital gains, the difference between the price you paid and the fair market value of the points.  Let's not go there.

Bingo

[YellowDog]

Mathematically, it wouldn't work.  Eventually, the only people drawn would be second or third generation participants in the drawing even without exponential weighting.  Also, the money is a same year commitment to the resource it is not a points investment.  The points program can end at any time without refund for your accumulation.  If points do have a value, you are required by law to report the capital gains, the difference between the price you paid and the fair market value of the points.  Let's not go there.

Bingo

I agree.  We are at the mercy of the system and what the state wants to do,
Except you are wrong about the capital gains.  If the transfer was allowed on death only there is no capital gain because the assets of a decedent's estate get a "step up" in basis to the date of death value and there is no realized gain.  Sorry, your wrong here. 

[Alan K]

You're right, I did forget that part.  

Figure an additional $70 per person per year, that's an additional $3500 over 10 years.  So I'd have 'invested' $5000 total, or $500 a year to have a nearly 3 times better chance at drawing than someone who has been putting in alone for 15 years.  Or a 625 times better chance at drawing than your kid who just passed hunter safety.

I understand the thinking, but this idea is flawed. Stacking points like this would completely undermine the 'fairness' the system has.

[YellowDog]

You're right, I did forget that part.  

Figure an additional $70 per person per year, that's an additional $3500 over 10 years.  So I'd have 'invested' $5000 total, or $500 a year to have a nearly 3 times better chance at drawing than someone who has been putting in alone for 15 years.  Or a 625 times better chance at drawing than your kid who just passed hunter safety.

I understand the thinking, but this idea is flawed.

No biggie man.  I'm just kind of trying to show the other side of the coin so to speak.  I really don't think it would or should be implemented but I am coming to the conclusion that the points system is a total joke.  The really funny thing is I just started "Playing the Game" in Wyoming, Colorado, and Montana last year.  I do think that once I draw all of my Washington permits, I will rarely, if ever, hunt big game here again so you will have one more chance in the drawing.... after I draw.    

[6x6in6]

This is about the dumbest idea I think I've heard of.  Well, it's up there anyways.

To "will" your points to someone?  I think our legislators have alot more important crap to work on than making sure my kid gets my points when I check out.

Wow, what an enormous waste of our elected officials time.  

[Alan K]

If I were you I'd start looking at buying landowner tags in Colorado if you want a top tag anyways.  They operate on a max points system and the points required to draw a top tag keep climbing every year.  That's why I like our system so much.  Sure I don't draw this year but I've got a better chance than the guy who hasn't put in as long.  Also, when I finally do draw, I like feeling of know that I have a chance to draw again the next year, albeit a small chance.

I'm unfamiliar with Wyoming or Montana, not sure if they operate the same as Colorado.

[Little Dave]

You would owe capital gains when you redeem or sell points if points have a value.

[6x6in6]

You would owe capital gains when you redeem or sell points if points have a value.

LOL!

[YellowDog]

If I were you I'd start looking at buying landowner tags in Colorado if you want a top tag anyways.  They operate on a max points system and the points required to draw a top tag keep climbing every year.  That's why I like our system so much.  Sure I don't draw this year but I've got a better chance than the guy who hasn't put in as long.  Also, when I finally do draw, I like feeling of know that I have a chance to draw again the next year, albeit a small chance.

I'm unfamiliar with Wyoming or Montana, not sure if they operate the same as Colorado.

I'm only in for deer in Colorado.  I think I might be able to draw a decent tag in say 10 years and the out of pocket cost is not that bad.  Elk was a total joke and it would probably take 30 yeard to draw a premium tag.  Wyoming lets you buy points only and I think you can draw archery elk and decent deer permits as often as you can expect to draw here.

[Little Dave]

Right now, an anti-hunting type can put in for a permit with hopes to someday draw the permit and not use it.  Under the current arrangement his points are wiped out when he dies.  I like it that way.

[YellowDog]

You would owe capital gains when you redeem or sell points if points have a value.

No you wouldn't.  You're not selling them. They would only be transferred on death and they would get a step up in basis to the date of death value and when they are redeemed they have no fair market value anyway because they can't be sold.  
 Wrong, wrong, wrong.  

[YellowDog]

Right now, an anti-hunting type can put in for a permit with hopes to someday draw the permit and not use it.  Under the current arrangement his points are wiped out when he dies.  I like it that way.

There is probably a few wack jobs out there that are actually doing this but at least if they are some of their money is going toward game management instead of true anti-hunting agenda.  Someone is going to draw all of the permits available so they are thworing their money away.  Good for them.

[Alan K]

Imagine if PETA or someone like that started funding applications for their members . . .

 

[TheHunt]

I would not support this.  I do like your idea Alan K of putting in all my non hunting relatives to collect points.  You are thinker!!!

[Skyvalhunter]

Thats not going to happen. If it didn't cost then maybe non hunting relatives would be doing that.

[Curly]

This is about the dumbest idea I think I've heard of.  Well, it's up there anyways.

To "will" your points to someone?  I think our legislators have a lot more important crap to work on than making sure my kid gets my points when I check out.

Wow, what an enormous waste of our elected officials time. 

I agree.  The idea is bad.

The most unfair thing WDFW did, with the point system, was when they started all these new categories and distributed a person's points into each category.  That was totally unfair.  To do this type of thing would even be worse than that ridiculous thing they decided on. 

Anyway, I agree with 6x6, it is an enormous waste of the legislators time to discuss a bill like this.

[bigtex]

This is about the dumbest idea I think I've heard of.  Well, it's up there anyways.

To "will" your points to someone?  I think our legislators have a lot more important crap to work on than making sure my kid gets my points when I check out.

Wow, what an enormous waste of our elected officials time. 

I agree.  The idea is bad.

The most unfair thing WDFW did, with the point system, was when they started all these new categories and distributed a person's points into each category.  That was totally unfair.  To do this type of thing would even be worse than that ridiculous thing they decided on. 

Anyway, I agree with 6x6, it is an enormous waste of the legislators time to discuss a bill like this.