Post by: 509muley on November 13, 2024, 09:21:33 PM
Post by: Romulus1297 on November 13, 2024, 10:32:03 PM
Post by: Rainier10 on November 14, 2024, 07:11:48 AM
Post by: 509muley on November 15, 2024, 07:24:31 AM
https://wdfw.wa.gov/sites/default/files/2024-07/1994-2024-auction-proceeds-1.pdfThanks. Crazy how much these have jumped in the last few years
Post by: TriggerMike on November 16, 2024, 03:07:31 PM
https://wdfw.wa.gov/sites/default/files/2024-07/1994-2024-auction-proceeds-1.pdfIs this for the raffle tags? Isn't a Governors Tag a separate tag? Asking because I don't know.
Post by: CarbonHunter on November 16, 2024, 03:38:01 PM
Post by: Rainier10 on November 16, 2024, 07:40:52 PM
This link is for the auction tags. There is a separate page for the raffle tags.https://wdfw.wa.gov/sites/default/files/2024-07/1994-2024-auction-proceeds-1.pdfIs this for the raffle tags? Isn't a Governors Tag a separate tag? Asking because I don't know.
Post by: bearpaw on November 22, 2024, 05:29:12 AM
I split this topic, for those who want to discuss the pros and cons of Governor tags post in this topic:
Governor Tag Discussion
https://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,289405.html
Post by: jdw12885 on January 02, 2025, 07:22:26 PM
Honestly even if I hit the big 6 and had a couple hundred million in the bank I still don’t think I would give $280k for a tag for one animal.
I think if I had a couple hundred million in the bank 280k wouldn’t be an issue :chuckle:
Post by: baldopepper on January 02, 2025, 07:51:45 PM
Post by: DaNewb on January 03, 2025, 10:27:43 AM
When does the season open? How long?
Which weapon(s) are allowed? Archery? Muzzleloader...Modern?
I can see why they're so expensive since there's only one governor per state, so is only one tag issued per state?
Is there a Lieutenant governor season/tag?
Are governors local to the state capitol areas only or can they be found state-wide? Seems like a lot of chance is involved in the actual hunt.
All the usual questions come to mind...can we spotlight them? Shooting from public roadways? Food-plotting, etc
I heard they're actually pretty lazy creatures in their natural environment...is it best to hunt evenings before sundown, perhaps around a country club or golf course? Local bar?
Are they gamey tasting? Can you smoke them?
Is there a governor's urine type attractant you can buy to increase your odds? Would some form a preferred alcohol such as bourbon or vodka work?
Is camo needed to get close to one? Perhaps some sort of lobbyist pattern?
Do you need a fishing license when taking one from a pool or bathing-type locale?
Can you use dogs?
How cute, my daughter just saw this and wants to know if kids under 12 get to hunt for free?
:yeah: :dunno:
:IBCOOL:
Post by: Dan-o on January 03, 2025, 11:01:00 AM
One thing I'd like to see considered: Make these tags OIL. I mean OIL for a single tag, not just a single species. As it stands now, you have to be worth multi-millions of dollars to play this game. If it went OIL, super rich guys could buy their dream hunt ONCE, and leave room for other people to also experience the incredible hunt this must be.
I don't begrudge a super rich guy for doing this. It's well within the rules and I can sure think of worse things to spend your money on than amazing hunts. But I'm in favor of this rule change if we keep having auction tags.
If someone buys me a megolotto ticket and I win, I'm in for next year!
Post by: boneaddict on January 03, 2025, 11:18:21 AM
Afterall it is all for conservation isnt it.
Post by: baldopepper on January 03, 2025, 11:58:53 AM
Might boost the prices a bit as well as then they'd know they also couldnt get it next year. hmmmm Thats an interesting thought.Need to keep an eye on what and where those conservation efforts are. Some are deceptively self serving. Saw a conservation program in Utah where a huge chunk of public, school trust land was completely leveled. Supposedly it was to create better habitat, but the area was already perfect habitat and was home to good numbers of both deer and elk. Maybe just coincidence (lol) but the remaining habitat left untouched was on three large, surrounding cwmus. Guess where those local herds are now living. I've heard from locals there that many other efforts are more beneficial to other cwmus and quality hunt units than to any public ground units. Money going to conservation can be a two edged sword.
Afterall it is all for c⁷onservation isnt it.
Post by: Humptulips on January 03, 2025, 03:27:39 PM
I think you miss the object of these hunts. It is to raise money. If it were to give every super rich guy a chance, it would be a raffle with a huge buy in. Draws are for the vulgar plebians.
One thing I'd like to see considered: Make these tags OIL. I mean OIL for a single tag, not just a single species. As it stands now, you have to be worth multi-millions of dollars to play this game. If it went OIL, super rich guys could buy their dream hunt ONCE, and leave room for other people to also experience the incredible hunt this must be.
I don't begrudge a super rich guy for doing this. It's well within the rules and I can sure think of worse things to spend your money on than amazing hunts. But I'm in favor of this rule change if we keep having auction tags.
If someone buys me a megolotto ticket and I win, I'm in for next year!
Post by: Seabass on January 03, 2025, 04:16:34 PM
One thing I'd like to see considered: Make these tags OIL. I mean OIL for a single tag, not just a single species. As it stands now, you have to be worth multi-millions of dollars to play this game. If it went OIL, super rich guys could buy their dream hunt ONCE, and leave room for other people to also experience the incredible hunt this must be.
I don't begrudge a super rich guy for doing this. It's well within the rules and I can sure think of worse things to spend your money on than amazing hunts. But I'm in favor of this rule change if we keep having auction tags.
The whole point is to raise money. Why would you limit the bidders? The more money in the room the higher the price. Normal people will never have a shot at these anyway.
If someone buys me a megolotto ticket and I win, I'm in for next year!
Post by: NOCK NOCK on January 04, 2025, 05:29:46 AM
One thing I'd like to see considered: Make these tags OIL. I mean OIL for a single tag, not just a single species. As it stands now, you have to be worth multi-millions of dollars to play this game. If it went OIL, super rich guys could buy their dream hunt ONCE, and leave room for other people to also experience the incredible hunt this must be.
I don't begrudge a super rich guy for doing this. It's well within the rules and I can sure think of worse things to spend your money on than amazing hunts. But I'm in favor of this rule change if we keep having auction tags.
If someone buys me a megolotto ticket and I win, I'm in for next year!
Kinda agree.
I've said it a bunch on here...If the super-rich guy really was a true sportsman, he would SHARE the resources with fellow hunters and still find it in his heart to DONATE (with no expectations of a permit/hunt in return) to conservation.
I LOVE/LIVE to hunt but see no reason why 1 guy should kill multiple OIL species in one state (like 5+ sheep).......just because he can.
Post by: jackelope on January 04, 2025, 06:16:51 AM
One thing I'd like to see considered: Make these tags OIL. I mean OIL for a single tag, not just a single species. As it stands now, you have to be worth multi-millions of dollars to play this game. If it went OIL, super rich guys could buy their dream hunt ONCE, and leave room for other people to also experience the incredible hunt this must be.
I don't begrudge a super rich guy for doing this. It's well within the rules and I can sure think of worse things to spend your money on than amazing hunts. But I'm in favor of this rule change if we keep having auction tags.
If someone buys me a megolotto ticket and I win, I'm in for next year!
But then you lose the whole point of these hunts. They’re there to raise money. That’s the whole point. They’re not for the “regular guy” by design. You could make an argument for limits on the raffle permits with me but limiting the auction tags doesn’t work for me.
Also minor technicality but Washington state doesn’t have governors tags like other states have. Just auction tags.
Post by: Magnum_Willys on January 04, 2025, 08:15:05 AM
Post by: Dan-o on January 04, 2025, 08:26:31 AM
I guess I just really do prefer the North American model, where the public owns the animals and you can't just buy them.
I do wonder if these tags put a single additional elk into the herd.
Post by: hughjorgan on January 04, 2025, 08:39:47 AM
Post by: Rainier10 on January 04, 2025, 08:50:31 AM
Post by: idahohuntr on January 04, 2025, 09:10:42 AM
I totally get what you last two guys are saying.They do not. And to make matters worse - you have to take opportunity from the public in order to ensure they are worth anything.
I guess I just really do prefer the North American model, where the public owns the animals and you can't just buy them.
I do wonder if these tags put a single additional elk into the herd.
And I want to be real clear - I have no ill-will or fault towards the hunters who obtain them - it's the state and wildlife managers who are to blame for this obvious deviation from the NAMWC.
Post by: baldopepper on January 04, 2025, 10:17:40 AM
:sry: :yeah: That certainly seems to be the new model. We all own the wildlife but it's only available to harvest by a few. I'm sure it's available, but I've never actually seen where this conservation funding is used. I think in many cases its used to enhance limited entry units and drive the prices to hunt them up. I think every state would love to develop a Antelope Island type unit where one tag sells for $500,000. The big hunting expo is a glaring example of what we can expect in the future.I totally get what you last two guys are saying.They do not. And to make matters worse - you have to take opportunity from the public in order to ensure they are worth anything.
I guess I just really do prefer the North American model, where the public owns the animals and you can't just buy them.
I do wonder if these tags put a single additional elk into the herd.
And I want to be real clear - I have no ill-will or fault towards the hunters who obtain them - it's the state and wildlife managers who are to blame for this obvious deviation from the NAMWC.
Post by: bearpaw on January 20, 2025, 08:30:02 AM
I totally get what you last two guys are saying.They do not. And to make matters worse - you have to take opportunity from the public in order to ensure they are worth anything.
I guess I just really do prefer the North American model, where the public owns the animals and you can't just buy them.
I do wonder if these tags put a single additional elk into the herd.
And I want to be real clear - I have no ill-will or fault towards the hunters who obtain them - it's the state and wildlife managers who are to blame for this obvious deviation from the NAMWC.
If the money isn't going to conservation of the species as you claim, can you show where the money is going?
Post by: idahohuntr on January 20, 2025, 08:52:14 AM
I've made no such claim.I totally get what you last two guys are saying.They do not. And to make matters worse - you have to take opportunity from the public in order to ensure they are worth anything.
I guess I just really do prefer the North American model, where the public owns the animals and you can't just buy them.
I do wonder if these tags put a single additional elk into the herd.
And I want to be real clear - I have no ill-will or fault towards the hunters who obtain them - it's the state and wildlife managers who are to blame for this obvious deviation from the NAMWC.
If the money isn't going to conservation of the species as you claim, can you show where the money is going?
My point is that the public loses more than it gains. With a multi-hundred-million-dollar WDFW budget - auction tag revenue is not even a rounding error.
Post by: LDennis24 on January 20, 2025, 09:14:03 AM
I've made no such claim.I totally get what you last two guys are saying.They do not. And to make matters worse - you have to take opportunity from the public in order to ensure they are worth anything.
I guess I just really do prefer the North American model, where the public owns the animals and you can't just buy them.
I do wonder if these tags put a single additional elk into the herd.
And I want to be real clear - I have no ill-will or fault towards the hunters who obtain them - it's the state and wildlife managers who are to blame for this obvious deviation from the NAMWC.
If the money isn't going to conservation of the species as you claim, can you show where the money is going?
My point is that the public loses more than it gains. With a multi-hundred-million-dollar WDFW budget - auction tag revenue is not even a rounding error.
But you did say that. The money goes to all efforts by the WDFW to manage the species. It's absolutely grossly abused and wasted by ignorance and stupidity at the management level in the office. But the money goes to helping fund research and projects meant for improving herd/population numbers. Even if it's $1
Post by: Tbar on January 20, 2025, 10:04:07 AM
I think conservation is subjective at best in this case. Manging to ensure trophy potential no doubt takes away from a management scheme around opportunity in general. So the masses lose and you end with enough funds for a pet project that may be species specific but very likely has no tangible benefit therefore ending in a net loss to all but the auction or raffle tag holder.I totally get what you last two guys are saying.They do not. And to make matters worse - you have to take opportunity from the public in order to ensure they are worth anything.
I guess I just really do prefer the North American model, where the public owns the animals and you can't just buy them.
I do wonder if these tags put a single additional elk into the herd.
And I want to be real clear - I have no ill-will or fault towards the hunters who obtain them - it's the state and wildlife managers who are to blame for this obvious deviation from the NAMWC.
If the money isn't going to conservation of the species as you claim, can you show where the money is going?
Post by: NOCK NOCK on January 20, 2025, 05:51:38 PM
Post by: Tbar on January 20, 2025, 05:59:25 PM
Tbar, assuming that should read "netYes, good catch.lotsloss" ?
Post by: Bowhunter3 on January 20, 2025, 06:17:14 PM
I totally get what you last two guys are saying.They do not. And to make matters worse - you have to take opportunity from the public in order to ensure they are worth anything.
I guess I just really do prefer the North American model, where the public owns the animals and you can't just buy them.
I do wonder if these tags put a single additional elk into the herd.
And I want to be real clear - I have no ill-will or fault towards the hunters who obtain them - it's the state and wildlife managers who are to blame for this obvious deviation from the NAMWC.
If the money isn't going to conservation of the species as you claim, can you show where the money is going?
Sounds like you have links to where it is specifically going? I would love to know where all of this conservation money is going. Looking forward to the sources.
Post by: idahohuntr on January 20, 2025, 06:29:54 PM
Exactly.I think conservation is subjective at best in this case. Manging to ensure trophy potential no doubt takes away from a management scheme around opportunity in general. So the masses lose and you end with enough funds for a pet project that may be species specific but very likely has no tangible benefit therefore ending in a net loss to all but the auction or raffle tag holder.I totally get what you last two guys are saying.They do not. And to make matters worse - you have to take opportunity from the public in order to ensure they are worth anything.
I guess I just really do prefer the North American model, where the public owns the animals and you can't just buy them.
I do wonder if these tags put a single additional elk into the herd.
And I want to be real clear - I have no ill-will or fault towards the hunters who obtain them - it's the state and wildlife managers who are to blame for this obvious deviation from the NAMWC.
If the money isn't going to conservation of the species as you claim, can you show where the money is going?
Post by: NOCK NOCK on January 21, 2025, 05:42:45 AM
Exactly.I think conservation is subjective at best in this case. Manging to ensure trophy potential no doubt takes away from a management scheme around opportunity in general. So the masses lose and you end with enough funds for a pet project that may be species specific but very likely has no tangible benefit therefore ending in a net loss to all but the auction or raffle tag holder.I totally get what you last two guys are saying.They do not. And to make matters worse - you have to take opportunity from the public in order to ensure they are worth anything.
I guess I just really do prefer the North American model, where the public owns the animals and you can't just buy them.
I do wonder if these tags put a single additional elk into the herd.
And I want to be real clear - I have no ill-will or fault towards the hunters who obtain them - it's the state and wildlife managers who are to blame for this obvious deviation from the NAMWC.
If the money isn't going to conservation of the species as you claim, can you show where the money is going?
Agree, also
Again, folks Never trust the government........unless it fits their narrative.
I worked for a gov. agency that was all over the spectrum of loved/hated. I can Guarantee you there was ALOT of money hiding/wasting/redirecting, even with monies they collected for a SPECIFIC application.
Post by: bearpaw on January 21, 2025, 11:04:03 AM
Exactly.I think conservation is subjective at best in this case. Manging to ensure trophy potential no doubt takes away from a management scheme around opportunity in general. So the masses lose and you end with enough funds for a pet project that may be species specific but very likely has no tangible benefit therefore ending in a net loss to all but the auction or raffle tag holder.I totally get what you last two guys are saying.They do not. And to make matters worse - you have to take opportunity from the public in order to ensure they are worth anything.
I guess I just really do prefer the North American model, where the public owns the animals and you can't just buy them.
I do wonder if these tags put a single additional elk into the herd.
And I want to be real clear - I have no ill-will or fault towards the hunters who obtain them - it's the state and wildlife managers who are to blame for this obvious deviation from the NAMWC.
If the money isn't going to conservation of the species as you claim, can you show where the money is going?
Agree, also
Again, folks Never trust the government........unless it fits their narrative.
I worked for a gov. agency that was all over the spectrum of loved/hated. I can Guarantee you there was ALOT of money hiding/wasting/redirecting, even with monies they collected for a SPECIFIC application.
So in answer to my question, none of you have shown that the money isn't going where it's supposed to go. I'm always suspect of government spending too, I was just wondering if anyone knew for sure or if this is all based on personal opinion and/or what you think is happening?
Post by: bearpaw on January 21, 2025, 11:15:57 AM
I think conservation is subjective at best in this case. Manging to ensure trophy potential no doubt takes away from a management scheme around opportunity in general. So the masses lose and you end with enough funds for a pet project that may be species specific but very likely has no tangible benefit therefore ending in a net loss to all but the auction or raffle tag holder.
Haven't the masses already lost because most eastern WA areas are draw only for branch bulls, which is the primary reason there are any trophy bulls?
I can remember before WDFW went to limited entry elk hunts, the elk were managed for the masses, anyone could buy a bull elk tag for eastern Washington, but the consequence of that was that most bulls taken were yearling bulls. There were few opportunities at even a respectable 6x6 much less a trophy class bull.
Post by: Mtnwalker on January 21, 2025, 11:25:01 AM
I think conservation is subjective at best in this case. Manging to ensure trophy potential no doubt takes away from a management scheme around opportunity in general. So the masses lose and you end with enough funds for a pet project that may be species specific but very likely has no tangible benefit therefore ending in a net loss to all but the auction or raffle tag holder.
Haven't the masses already lost because most eastern WA areas are draw only for branch bulls, which is the primary reason there are any trophy bulls?
I can remember before WDFW went to limited entry elk hunts, the elk were managed for the masses, anyone could buy a bull elk tag for eastern Washington, but the consequence of that was that most bulls taken were yearling bulls. There were few opportunities at even a respectable 6x6 much less a trophy class bull.
Now that branched tags have been cut by 90+ percent and basically become OIL one could certainly make that argument. It was a pretty decent system when a guy could draw an archery tag every 4-7 years and then kill spikes and cows in the mean time
Post by: NOCK NOCK on January 21, 2025, 11:43:19 AM
I don’t believe anyone, without doing a massive FOIA request, can prove either way on the spending.
Even if done, no way to positive your getting correct info
Post by: Tbar on January 21, 2025, 01:01:18 PM
Very fair question but flawed initial assessment of loss in first paragraph. The APR is a management scheme to control overall harvest while continuing to provide OTC opportunities. The state basically tried to make it difficult to be successful hence the very low success rates. Once you transition to step two it comes down to biological needs. This may require a second look if spike escapement drops.I think conservation is subjective at best in this case. Manging to ensure trophy potential no doubt takes away from a management scheme around opportunity in general. So the masses lose and you end with enough funds for a pet project that may be species specific but very likely has no tangible benefit therefore ending in a net loss to all but the auction or raffle tag holder.
Haven't the masses already lost because most eastern WA areas are draw only for branch bulls, which is the primary reason there are any trophy bulls?
I can remember before WDFW went to limited entry elk hunts, the elk were managed for the masses, anyone could buy a bull elk tag for eastern Washington, but the consequence of that was that most bulls taken were yearling bulls. There were few opportunities at even a respectable 6x6 much less a trophy class bull.
You then look at age structure within the herd. If you maintain some balance amongst different cohorts your breeding needs will be met. You can then manipulate harvest as needed with weapons and dates. The state could hunt the structure down almost to one year if your spike escapement is adequate. So providing more branched tags to the masses would seem reasonable. You would still find big bulls but not at the current levels. I think we got an unsustainable appetite when Pat Fowler grew giants in the blues but so much has changed since then, management has to evolve with those changes including closer attention to impacts and margins by producers. This is a major limiting factor of herd growth. Nearly all of the critical winter habitat is prioritized for agriculture. An agricultural industry that is not as tolerant as past generations.
Lots of factors but many are just arbitrary choices often driven by the desire to see more inches vs more opportunity.
Post by: Tbar on January 21, 2025, 01:18:00 PM
This is likely due to survey methodology. There has been several reactive measures where they seemingly lost significant numbers. Once found they made the odd choice to continue with otc but exercise the precautionary principle with branched bulls.I think conservation is subjective at best in this case. Manging to ensure trophy potential no doubt takes away from a management scheme around opportunity in general. So the masses lose and you end with enough funds for a pet project that may be species specific but very likely has no tangible benefit therefore ending in a net loss to all but the auction or raffle tag holder.
Haven't the masses already lost because most eastern WA areas are draw only for branch bulls, which is the primary reason there are any trophy bulls?
I can remember before WDFW went to limited entry elk hunts, the elk were managed for the masses, anyone could buy a bull elk tag for eastern Washington, but the consequence of that was that most bulls taken were yearling bulls. There were few opportunities at even a respectable 6x6 much less a trophy class bull.
Now that branched tags have been cut by 90+ percent and basically become OIL one could certainly make that argument. It was a pretty decent system when a guy could draw an archery tag every 4-7 years and then kill spikes and cows in the mean time
Post by: bearpaw on January 21, 2025, 01:45:40 PM
This is likely due to survey methodology. There has been several reactive measures where they seemingly lost significant numbers. Once found they made the odd choice to continue with otc but exercise the precautionary principle with branched bulls.I think conservation is subjective at best in this case. Manging to ensure trophy potential no doubt takes away from a management scheme around opportunity in general. So the masses lose and you end with enough funds for a pet project that may be species specific but very likely has no tangible benefit therefore ending in a net loss to all but the auction or raffle tag holder.
Haven't the masses already lost because most eastern WA areas are draw only for branch bulls, which is the primary reason there are any trophy bulls?
I can remember before WDFW went to limited entry elk hunts, the elk were managed for the masses, anyone could buy a bull elk tag for eastern Washington, but the consequence of that was that most bulls taken were yearling bulls. There were few opportunities at even a respectable 6x6 much less a trophy class bull.
Now that branched tags have been cut by 90+ percent and basically become OIL one could certainly make that argument. It was a pretty decent system when a guy could draw an archery tag every 4-7 years and then kill spikes and cows in the mean time
The points I'm making is that the management style used to get trophy bulls on the ground has already reduced opportunity for the masses, and the failure to manage predators certainly has taken even more opportunity away from the masses. One wolf or one cougar has more impact on the opportunity for the masses than all the auction tags combined. When you consider that there are probably two or three times as many cougar and way more wolves than we should have in this state, it becomes obvious the enormity of the predator impact outweighs a handful of auction tags by at least a thousand times. The argument of auction tags taking opportunity from the masses holds little weight.
Post by: bearpaw on January 21, 2025, 01:53:58 PM
Very fair question but flawed initial assessment of loss in first paragraph. The APR is a management scheme to control overall harvest while continuing to provide OTC opportunities. The state basically tried to make it difficult to be successful hence the very low success rates. Once you transition to step two it comes down to biological needs. This may require a second look if spike escapement drops.I think conservation is subjective at best in this case. Manging to ensure trophy potential no doubt takes away from a management scheme around opportunity in general. So the masses lose and you end with enough funds for a pet project that may be species specific but very likely has no tangible benefit therefore ending in a net loss to all but the auction or raffle tag holder.
Haven't the masses already lost because most eastern WA areas are draw only for branch bulls, which is the primary reason there are any trophy bulls?
I can remember before WDFW went to limited entry elk hunts, the elk were managed for the masses, anyone could buy a bull elk tag for eastern Washington, but the consequence of that was that most bulls taken were yearling bulls. There were few opportunities at even a respectable 6x6 much less a trophy class bull.
You then look at age structure within the herd. If you maintain some balance amongst different cohorts your breeding needs will be met. You can then manipulate harvest as needed with weapons and dates. The state could hunt the structure down almost to one year if your spike escapement is adequate. So providing more branched tags to the masses would seem reasonable. You would still find big bulls but not at the current levels. I think we got an unsustainable appetite when Pat Fowler grew giants in the blues but so much has changed since then, management has to evolve with those changes including closer attention to impacts and margins by producers. This is a major limiting factor of herd growth. Nearly all of the critical winter habitat is prioritized for agriculture. An agricultural industry that is not as tolerant as past generations.
Lots of factors but many are just arbitrary choices often driven by the desire to see more inches vs more opportunity.
agree with most all of that
Post by: idahohuntr on January 21, 2025, 01:57:14 PM
The argument of auction tags taking opportunity from the masses holds little weight.The argument auction tags have put a single additional elk on the landscape holds little weight.
Post by: bearpaw on January 21, 2025, 02:03:27 PM
@bearpaw
I don’t believe anyone, without doing a massive FOIA request, can prove either way on the spending.
Even if done, no way to positive your getting correct info
I mostly agree!
However, there is nothing to back up this statement made earlier in this topic: "very likely has no tangible benefit therefore ending in a net loss to all but the auction or raffle tag holder"
Post by: bearpaw on January 21, 2025, 02:07:01 PM
The argument of auction tags taking opportunity from the masses holds little weight.The argument auction tags have put a single additional elk on the landscape holds little weight.
I can't see where anyone has made that statement?
Post by: Tbar on January 21, 2025, 02:26:58 PM
Most of the pet projects are showcased at the given event. There should also be a summary from the section manager.@bearpaw
I don’t believe anyone, without doing a massive FOIA request, can prove either way on the spending.
Even if done, no way to positive your getting correct info
I mostly agree!
However, there is nothing to back up this statement made earlier in this topic: "very likely has no tangible benefit therefore ending in a net loss to all but the auction or raffle tag holder"
Post by: bearpaw on January 22, 2025, 04:02:29 PM
Most of the pet projects are showcased at the given event. There should also be a summary from the section manager.@bearpaw
I don’t believe anyone, without doing a massive FOIA request, can prove either way on the spending.
Even if done, no way to positive your getting correct info
I mostly agree!
However, there is nothing to back up this statement made earlier in this topic: "very likely has no tangible benefit therefore ending in a net loss to all but the auction or raffle tag holder"
Thanks, that info would be some meat and potatoes for this discussion!
Post by: huntnphool on January 22, 2025, 11:56:14 PM
Post by: NOCK NOCK on January 23, 2025, 05:04:21 AM
All you guys that are opposed to the auction tags, are you equally opposed to the raffle tags? The average Joe can buy 1000 tickets and stack the odds in his favor for an OIL hunt at a fraction of the price that one guy is spending on an auction tag.
Interesting take on "Average Joe", my guess is the AJ is not going to gamble on a hunt for $6000-17K ........The AJ is trying to figure out how to pay their rent/mort and still afford eggs for the kiddos.
Post by: teanawayslayer on January 23, 2025, 08:16:31 AM
Why is this mostly elk discussion in the deer section?blind leading the blind. :chuckle:
Post by: Tbar on January 23, 2025, 08:24:31 AM
Maybe misplaced by the OP but the question asked referenced "tags". You both seem to be very much in the know on these tags. Maybe you can provide clarity on the benefits of these tags? What are the conservation outcomes of the proceeds? Honest questions so I'm not considered blind. Thanks in advance.Why is this mostly elk discussion in the deer section?blind leading the blind. :chuckle:
Post by: NOCK NOCK on January 23, 2025, 05:34:19 PM
Maybe misplaced by the OP but the question asked referenced "tags". You both seem to be very much in the know on these tags. Maybe you can provide clarity on the benefits of these tags? What are the conservation outcomes of the proceeds? Honest questions so I'm not considered blind. Thanks in advance.Why is this mostly elk discussion in the deer section?blind leading the blind. :chuckle:
OP asked about permits. (non species specific) As most all threads do, transpired into elk.
I"m curious too .......what ya got guys ??????
Post by: hughjorgan on January 25, 2025, 12:52:15 PM
All you guys that are opposed to the auction tags, are you equally opposed to the raffle tags? The average Joe can buy 1000 tickets and stack the odds in his favor for an OIL hunt at a fraction of the price that one guy is spending on an auction tag.
Interesting take on "Average Joe", my guess is the AJ is not going to gamble on a hunt for $6000-17K ........The AJ is trying to figure out how to pay their rent/mort and still afford eggs for the kiddos.
The average Joe that likes to hunt is spending thousands every year going out of state and hunting multiple states. There not rich, they work in the trades, etc. It’s not hard to believe some guys drop thousands on raffle tickets. I know of at least one guy that’s done it and he is just a middle class guy that likes to hunt.
Post by: NOCK NOCK on January 25, 2025, 05:52:48 PM
All you guys that are opposed to the auction tags, are you equally opposed to the raffle tags? The average Joe can buy 1000 tickets and stack the odds in his favor for an OIL hunt at a fraction of the price that one guy is spending on an auction tag.
Interesting take on "Average Joe", my guess is the AJ is not going to gamble on a hunt for $6000-17K ........The AJ is trying to figure out how to pay their rent/mort and still afford eggs for the kiddos.
The average Joe that likes to hunt is spending thousands every year going out of state and hunting multiple states. There not rich, they work in the trades, etc. It’s not hard to believe some guys drop thousands on raffle tickets. I know of at least one guy that’s done it and he is just a middle class guy that likes to hunt.
Average WA income is like $50k. after high Mort/Rent/food/fuel/etc. I Would be willing to bet the AJ spending thousands yearly on hunts would quickly become a single man if married. :chuckle: Sure every so often, but that's a lot of money to spend every year.
I spend way more time hunting, and doing hunting related outings than most, and considered myself AJ+, and cannot justify spending that kind of money every year..
We'll have to agree to disagree on what's considered average Joe.