Post by: pianoman9701 on April 03, 2017, 02:03:10 PM
Long story short, I'd like to see all OIL auctions ended in WA. Although I get it - if you're rich, you've likely worked hard to get where you are and afford some of those things. But undermining our game management system by catering to a given class of people is stupid. What say you?
Post by: Timberstalker on April 03, 2017, 02:06:16 PM
Post by: chester on April 03, 2017, 02:07:06 PM
Post by: Bob33 on April 03, 2017, 02:09:42 PM
Post by: Gringo31 on April 03, 2017, 02:14:34 PM
On one hand, cash talks. WDFW is in need of it BUT.....like so many things, we don't have a revenue issue, we have a spending problem. More money doesn't fix spending problems. I see the value in both sides of this argument but until the spending problem is fixed....I don't think any alternative "solutions" matter. :twocents:
Post by: Bob33 on April 03, 2017, 02:38:03 PM
http://www.boone-crockett.org/conservation/conservation_NAM.asp?area=conservation&gclid=Cj0KEQjw5YfHBRDzjNnioYq3_swBEiQArj4pdADNKS47QfaQUfJmXmcsYGKQr-Sf6v2wRW0aYWkiwxoaAr4q8P8HAQ
Opportunity for All – Every citizen has the freedom to hunt and fish.
Public access to wildlife, regardless of social or economic status, including hunting, fishing, and trapping is a right of citizenship. This access fosters individual stewardship and provides the funding necessary to properly manage wildlife resources in a sustainable manner.
Boone and Crockett Club founder, Theodore Roosevelt believed strongly in wise-use conservation and fought aggressively against preservationist, or non-use proposals. The Club also believed that those who use the resource should pay for its care and maintenance. The Club lobbied for the laws and institutions that provided this funding, including a federal excise tax on sporting arms and ammunition and the federal Duck Stamp program. Sportsmen ands women subsequently stepped forward and gladly accepted their role in funding conservation
Post by: kentrek on April 03, 2017, 02:43:37 PM
I'm on the fence.
On one hand, cash talks. WDFW is in need of it BUT.....like so many things, we don't have a revenue issue, we have a spending problem. More money doesn't fix spending problems. I see the value in both sides of this argument but until the spending problem is fixed....I don't think any alternative "solutions" matter. :twocents:
:yeah:
I'm on the fence as well but leaning with pianoman.....the general public needs more opportunities
Post by: idahohuntr on April 03, 2017, 02:48:29 PM
I think it is important in these discussions to focus on the system and the enabler (WDFW, legislature etc.) not the participants in the auctions who are playing by the rules setup by the enablers. :twocents:
Post by: JDHasty on April 03, 2017, 03:01:08 PM
And then there are those who impress me as only involved for what they can personally get out of it.
I am not ready to say that the abusers should end the opportunity for all to participate, but I would not have any qualms limiting the Raffle Tags to no more than 10 chances/Wild ID per opportunity though.
Post by: Smoke on April 03, 2017, 04:00:48 PM
I feel that way too... however the State of Washington says specifically that hunting and fishing are not rights but privileges, and can be taken away at anytime for any reason..
Post by: rosscrazyelk on April 03, 2017, 08:56:05 PM
Just saying..
I understand your stance somewhat though
Post by: NOCK NOCK on April 03, 2017, 09:03:39 PM
I used to think that OIL tag auctions raised essential money for conservation and are a necessary tool. My opinion has changed. After the Bullwinkle episode, it occurs to me that these auctions are just another in a long series of nails in the coffin of public hunting's future. We're losing more land to leases and pay to play every year. The animal rights people collect more and more money for litigation which seeks to further regulate and restrict us, and to eventually end our heritage. And we now have lopsided legislatures, commissions, and "scientific" panels which have forgotten the reasons that our wildlife is abundant - the efforts of hunters which brought the wildlife back. Their successes in ending hounding and baiting, and introducing multiple apex predators are aimed at taking us out. And it's effective.
Long story short, I'd like to see all OIL auctions ended in WA. Although I get it - if you're rich, you've likely worked hard to get where you are and afford some of those things. But undermining our game management system by catering to a given class of people is stupid. What say you?
I agree P-man....except for the bold part. A lot of folks have worked hard their whole lives and still can not afford to spend that kind of dough. The garbage collector guy, construction dude, septic pumper, grocery store clerks, fruit pickers, etc...all work very hard, and with out them, the rest of us would be lost. These people are no less deserving than the ones who worked hard (in the right fields, and with some luck maybe) and make extraordinary $$$.
Do away with the auctions, and limit the amount of entries for raffle tags, make it fair and reasonable to ALL.
Post by: jackelope on April 03, 2017, 10:07:14 PM
Post by: Gringo31 on April 04, 2017, 06:14:07 AM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: pianoman9701 on April 04, 2017, 06:17:29 AM
For clarity - are you referring to the Raffle Drawings and Governor Tags?Governor tags - anything that's auctioned.
Post by: ctwiggs1 on April 04, 2017, 06:26:07 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on April 04, 2017, 06:38:04 AM
Correct, they're not OIL tags if you can get one every year. The auctions are even more so. The highest bidders are often the same people each year.
I would limit the number of raffle tickets to something like 50 per license. Only the person winning the raffle can hunt for the animal. And that number keeps most people able to buy the maximum tickets if they want.
I agree that a great many of us work hard for a living and end up with nothing at the end of the year. My point about rich people was only that I don't have anything against someone who's turned his career into a goldmine and become hugely successful
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on April 04, 2017, 06:54:22 AM
I used to think that OIL tag auctions raised essential money for conservation and are a necessary tool. My opinion has changed. After the Bullwinkle episode, it occurs to me that these auctions are just another in a long series of nails in the coffin of public hunting's future. We're losing more land to leases and pay to play every year. The animal rights people collect more and more money for litigation which seeks to further regulate and restrict us, and to eventually end our heritage. And we now have lopsided legislatures, commissions, and "scientific" panels which have forgotten the reasons that our wildlife is abundant - the efforts of hunters which brought the wildlife back. Their successes in ending hounding and baiting, and introducing multiple apex predators are aimed at taking us out. And it's effective.
Long story short, I'd like to see all OIL auctions ended in WA. Although I get it - if you're rich, you've likely worked hard to get where you are and afford some of those things. But undermining our game management system by catering to a given class of people is stupid. What say you?
I say........... "Good to see you coming around".
It seems that most of these tags go to organizations like SFW that actively work against the average hunter through political manipulation. And don't get me started on SCI which supports canned hunting by including animals taken on canned hunts in their record books.
Post by: JKEEN33 on April 04, 2017, 06:56:08 AM
Post by: ctwiggs1 on April 04, 2017, 06:57:55 AM
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on April 04, 2017, 07:02:48 AM
I'm good with the auctions. I'm not ok with people "buying" the raffles. Maybe that's a different thread, and maybe it's not.
So you're not OK with people "buying" the raffles. But you are OK with someone "buying" the auction? That's backwards thinking in my mind. Buying a bunch of raffle tickets doesn't guarantee you will win the drawing, and that can even be made more fair for all with a limit on the # of tickets allowed per person. But there is no way the average hunter can beat a rich guy out for an auction tag.
Post by: HUNTINCOUPLE on April 04, 2017, 07:04:47 AM
Post by: bobcat on April 04, 2017, 07:27:54 AM
Post by: Bob33 on April 04, 2017, 07:41:58 AM
Post by: Bob33 on April 04, 2017, 07:45:42 AM
Post by: ctwiggs1 on April 04, 2017, 07:48:45 AM
Where does the money go?
Post by: klickman on April 04, 2017, 08:04:13 AM
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on April 04, 2017, 08:08:19 AM
I'm all for ending auction tags in Washington, and either no more raffle tags or a limit to how many a person can buy. If the WDFW becomes desperate enough for more money, they can sell bear baiting permits and hound hunting licenses.
Amen
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on April 04, 2017, 08:10:57 AM
@Bob33
Where does the money go?
That is the $64,000 question. What has that money actually accomplished?
Post by: JDHasty on April 04, 2017, 08:13:11 AM
I'm good with the auctions. I'm not ok with people "buying" the raffles. Maybe that's a different thread, and maybe it's not.
That is where I am at.
Post by: JimmyHoffa on April 04, 2017, 08:17:12 AM
Post by: Bob33 on April 04, 2017, 08:19:22 AM
@Bob33That information is not readily available; it would require a PDR request: http://wdfw.wa.gov/about/public_disclosure/
Where does the money go?
The best you can do without a PDR is this WAC: https://app.leg.wa.gov/WAC/default.aspx?cite=220-412-060
6. Revenue from the sale of single-species auction permits shall be used for the management of that species and revenue from the sale of multiple-species auction permits shall be used for game management. Except, that the hunting license fees for the appropriate species shall be considered part of the auction price and be deducted from the auction revenue. A hunting license and transport tag will be mailed to the successful bidder.
Post by: pianoman9701 on April 04, 2017, 08:21:58 AM
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.
Post by: Bob33 on April 04, 2017, 08:33:22 AM
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.
Post by: Redbeard on April 04, 2017, 08:42:53 AM
I believe we should all be on a level playing field when obtaining tags.
Anything after that if your money or success in life helps you tag that animal well good for you.
Post by: JDHasty on April 04, 2017, 08:46:52 AM
I know of at least one instance where a winner of an Auction & Raffle tag tried to go into one GMU and take two outstanding trophies (using modern firearm) from that one unit before anyone else, particularly those who finally drew a Quality tag, has an opportunity in that unit.
*I would also open it up to the Auction/Raffle Tag winners for archery five days after Archery first opens in each unit and let it run through Dec 31. Open it for the Auction/Raffle Tag winners for ML five days after ML first opens in each unit and let it run through Dec 31. and open it for Auction/Raffle Tag winners for modern firearm five days after modern firearm first opens in each unit and let it run through Dec 31.
However if there were a limit to 10, or 50, or even a hundred Raffle purchases then I would not impose the * clause I have above and would allow it to be open from Sept - Dec.
Post by: Dhoey07 on April 04, 2017, 08:53:18 AM
Post by: JDHasty on April 04, 2017, 09:01:12 AM
Any time you *censored* out animals to the highest bidder, it doesn't end well.
That is not really fair. There are a few, the usual suspects, who abuse these opportunities over and over again. But most of the participants you never hear about. Here is the story of a friend of mine, he used to participate in these opportunities quite a bit: https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1310&dat=19910922&id=gENWAAAAIBAJ&sjid=mOoDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6525,5192645&hl=en
I know others who have participated too and most of them I have met through these guys have taken the opportunity to challenge themselves.
Post by: pianoman9701 on April 04, 2017, 09:09:33 AM
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.
Post by: idahohuntr on April 04, 2017, 09:15:18 AM
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.
Post by: Dhoey07 on April 04, 2017, 09:29:52 AM
Any time you *censored* out animals to the highest bidder, it doesn't end well.
That is not really fair. There are a few, the usual suspects, who abuse these opportunities over and over again. But most of the participants you never hear about. Here is the story of a friend of mine, he used to participate in these opportunities quite a bit: https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1310&dat=19910922&id=gENWAAAAIBAJ&sjid=mOoDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6525,5192645&hl=en
I know others who have participated too and most of them I have met through these guys have taken the opportunity to challenge themselves.
I am not talking about individuals, I'm talking about the overall concept.
Post by: JKEEN33 on April 04, 2017, 09:41:41 AM
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?
Post by: trophyhunt on April 04, 2017, 09:52:08 AM
Post by: rosscrazyelk on April 04, 2017, 10:10:50 AM
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.
Post by: pianoman9701 on April 04, 2017, 10:22:47 AM
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.
Post by: trophyhunt on April 04, 2017, 10:29:58 AM
I know people who will not buy the special raffle anymore.:yeah: 30 sounds about right.
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.
Post by: JDHasty on April 04, 2017, 10:32:05 AM
:yeah:I know people who will not buy the special raffle anymore.:yeah: 30 sounds about right.
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.
I think so too
Post by: pianoman9701 on April 04, 2017, 10:34:54 AM
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. :tup: Knowing I'm always on the right side of the discussion helps, too! :chuckle:
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.
Post by: Tbar on April 04, 2017, 10:39:39 AM
:yeah: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. :twocents:
Post by: JDHasty on April 04, 2017, 10:49:58 AM
:yeah: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. :twocents:
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.
Post by: Tbar on April 04, 2017, 10:58:01 AM
I know people who will not buy the special raffle anymore.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.
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.
Post by: JKEEN33 on April 04, 2017, 11:13:31 AM
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.
Post by: NOCK NOCK on April 04, 2017, 11:15:23 AM
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.
Post by: pianoman9701 on April 04, 2017, 11:40:15 AM
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.
Post by: DOUBLELUNG on April 04, 2017, 03:31:18 PM
Post by: nwhunter on April 04, 2017, 08:46:59 PM
Post by: Wacenturion on April 04, 2017, 09:03:14 PM
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. :twocents:
Post by: pianoman9701 on April 05, 2017, 06:27:10 AM
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.
Post by: idahohuntr on April 05, 2017, 09:05:51 AM
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. :twocents:
Post by: Tbar on April 05, 2017, 09:22:12 AM
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.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. :twocents:
Post by: idahohuntr on April 05, 2017, 09:36:26 AM
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.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. :twocents:
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.
Post by: Jpmiller on April 05, 2017, 09:40:35 AM
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.
Post by: pianoman9701 on April 05, 2017, 09:55:29 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on April 05, 2017, 10:17:46 AM
Post by: Jpmiller on April 05, 2017, 10:31:49 AM
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.
Post by: pianoman9701 on April 05, 2017, 10:36:53 AM
Post by: huntnphool on April 05, 2017, 10:43:13 AM
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
Post by: Wacenturion on April 05, 2017, 01:42:15 PM
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.
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on April 05, 2017, 04:05:16 PM
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.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. :twocents:
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.
Post by: Tbar on April 05, 2017, 05:20:24 PM
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.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.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. :twocents:
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.