Washington Governor Tag

[Seabass]

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!

[NOCK NOCK]

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.

[jackelope]

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.

[Magnum_Willys]

Like said - its about raising $.  Hats off to the guy that keeps donating the most.  You want to prevent your biggest donor from donating next year?   Who’s to say bidder #3 maybe only offers half as much ?

[Dan-o]

I totally get what you last two guys are saying.

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. 

[hughjorgan]

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.

[Rainier10]

Auction tag holders harvest the biggest oldest bulls which is good in my opinion. Take them out of the herd before they die of old age. Many general tag holders shoot the first 5x5 or 6x6 they see, often times those are very young bulls with multiple years of breeding left in them. In my opinion the goal should be to harvest the oldest most mature bulls.

[idahohuntr]

I totally get what you last two guys are saying.

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.

They do not.  And to make matters worse - you have to take opportunity from the public in order to ensure they are worth anything. 

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.

[baldopepper]

I totally get what you last two guys are saying.

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.

They do not.  And to make matters worse - you have to take opportunity from the public in order to ensure they are worth anything. 

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.

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.

[bearpaw]

I totally get what you last two guys are saying.

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.

They do not.  And to make matters worse - you have to take opportunity from the public in order to ensure they are worth anything. 

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?

[idahohuntr]

I totally get what you last two guys are saying.

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.

They do not.  And to make matters worse - you have to take opportunity from the public in order to ensure they are worth anything. 

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?

I've made no such claim. 

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. 

[LDennis24]

I totally get what you last two guys are saying.

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.

They do not.  And to make matters worse - you have to take opportunity from the public in order to ensure they are worth anything. 

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?

I've made no such claim. 

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

[Tbar]

I totally get what you last two guys are saying.

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.

They do not.  And to make matters worse - you have to take opportunity from the public in order to ensure they are worth anything. 

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?

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.

[NOCK NOCK]

Tbar, assuming that should read "net lots loss" ?

[Tbar]

Tbar, assuming that should read "net lots loss" ?

Yes,  good catch.