Arizona Draw Process Needs Changes

B

bubbas

Guest
I just posted this under a reply on another thread and thought it would make for some good discussion. I feel that with the changes in the hunting world that have occurred over the last decade there needs to be a change in the way Game and Fish Departments conduct not only the draw but the hunt structures. For the purposes of this discussion I will specifically be referring to my homw state of Arizona. The following is a list of changes I feel would benefit the greater good (not all). Again, I do not feel that these would be NICE changes but NECESSARY changes. Please share your thoughts. Between all of us we should be able to come up with reasons why we should or should not institute these changes.

1. ONLINE DRAW PROCESS-On the surface, I see no reason why the draw should not be online. There would not need to be a correction period because errors would be caught before being processed, aside from entering in an unintentional hunt number. There is no way to prevent this. The only arguments I have heard against the online process are selfish ones....people feel they will have better draw odds with paper apps. Again, I feel this is selfish but hey it's a selfish world. I would say you could still charge fees up front with a credit card online, like Colorado and now New Mexico. However from the game and Fish perspective, remember they want to make as much money as possible on the draw and the online process allows for this.

2. TURNING TAG BACK IN-When someone draws a tag there are many times when the drawee does not want the tag or simply can't use the tag. How many times have you heard the stories..."oh, I put my son in and he drew that early elk tag but he is in his final semester of school and can't go", or" My wife drew that 13B mulie tag but she is 8 months pregnant and WON'T go", or gets an injury, life changing illness, etc, etc. The list goes on. And heaven for bid, if someone put a cow hunt number down instead of the bull hunt number they could even turn the tag back in to someone who will actually appreciate and enjoy it (personally, I think they should all burn at the stake for making a mistake LOL). I see no negative to this practice. How bout everyone else?

3. INCREASE HOLD OVER PERCENTAGE- Increase the "hold over" tag percentage to 50% for those with max bonus points. Seriously, in a hunt with 150 tags such as many archery bull hunts, that would STILL leave 75 tags for the random lucky SOB to draw with less than max points. The incentive to put in with less than max points is still there so the Department won't have to worry about scaring away new applicants and decreasing application revenue. Actually, I would argue that there would be MORE incentive for new applicants because they would have more faith that in a more fair process they will be rewarded for their draw loyalty. The only people I personally have heard argue against this change are the guys that draw multiple tags year after year. Well, good on you but again I say that is selfish and really if you want to draw those cow tags every year, odds are you still will with an increase in hold over. It only makes it more fair for everyone putting in for the hard to draw tags. Isn't that what America is supposed to be about.....put your hard work in, sacrifice, follow the rules and you won't be screwed. That isn't reality but isn't that what we strive for, especially as a governmental agency (again, maybe i am an elitist.....asking too much for a fair system).

4. 3 YEAR WAIT PERIOD ON PREMIUM ESTABLISHED HUNTS- after drawing a premium hunt a 3 year wait period is followed. Bonus points CAN STILL be accrued during this time. I have heard the Department argue that statistics show an almost negligible effect on draw odds by doing this. They must think we are all idiots (which they do count on by the way and we usually comply). This is simply an exploitation of statistics. When you look at the number of people drawing a tag in a premium unit multiple times within a 3 year period and then compare that event to the OVERALL draw applicants, of course it will be small to negligible. But not when you look at it as individual hunt numbers. In a hunt with 150 tags, even if individuals, who drew multiple times within 3 years, received ONLY 5% of the tags for that draw.......that is 7-8 people. That is 7-8 people who have donated a lot of money, who are getting older by the year, and may not draw for another 5-6 years because they will screwed again the next year by lucky joe bow. It matters to those 7-8 people. Spread the wealth!

5. INSTITUTE PREMIUM DRAW HUNTS- This was brought to the public a few years ago and honestly who knows what the results were from the public surveys. Everyone I know who has sent those surveys in, the Department has done otherwise. That is anecdotal though. Although, anyone who thinks the Department does what the majority of public wants....I got a bridge to sell you. they only provide those surveys and the meetings as political compliance. But they are not complied to listen.
Premium hunt units would cause people to fully commit to their hunt interest level and philosophies. Additionally, the units could be managed in a way to reflect the management goals depending on it being an area of quality or opportunity. They could charge more for the premium hunts to compensate for the lower tag revenue.. But really those who value those hunts will have no problems paying higher fees if the experience is quality and the alternative is a decreased hunting experience. if they don't want to pay those fees they will still have other units to apply for.

These were just some points with regard to the draw. Discussing the ineptitude of how the Arizona Game and Fish Department runs their affairs in other areas of wildlife management is a whole different discussion...and there is much to discuss!
 
Its perfectly fine just the way it is.







































"I'll keep my guns, freedom, and money.
You can keep the "change"!"
 
care to expound on why you feel these changes would be worse than the current system or why you are content with "fine" vs. better?
 
Sounds like you didn't draw a tag, have you gone to a Game & Fish meeting lately with you're ideas?
 
I didn't this year but I have been more lucky than a lot of folks so that is not the issue. I just try be as objective as possible and i for one am tired of seeing governmental agencies get away with mismanagement either due to intentional actions motivated by personal agendas or ignorance and ineptitude. I feel the AZGFD is guilty on all accounts!

And yes I have been to meetings. Have you? How many times have you seen ideas like this effectively or sincerely addressed? Not once for me. It takes a large faction of people to do that and even then it won't happen in AZ without a big fight by the Commission (Fallacy). Case in point the process by which to appoint new commissioners being shot down by The Commission (that was a big shocker).
 
LAST EDITED ON Apr-15-09 AT 09:33PM (MST)[p]The average AZ sportsman is ok with "fine" as Sremim puts it instead of demanding better. If we as a whole only want "fine" that is what we will get.

I would love to see what each responder had to say about each individual point. That way we could get a good sampling of opinions on the points. Are they valid? If not, Why not? Do you have better recommendations? If not why not? Are they good suggestions but just need some editing, etc?
 
I have brought these same ideas up at many past muledeer meetings and at sheep mettings.Most of the time it falls on deaf ears just like now.I have been for premium units for ever and a three year waiting period used to be standard in the 70's.
It cost twice as much to get a 16a tag for elk in N.Mex as a unit 7 tag .For me as a nonresident it is 700 compared to 300.i wished and have brought it up at many G&f meetings the 12 and 13 deer units should be at least 150 for us and 450 for nonresidents.online is fine by me and a whole lot easier.Just so you know I drew a unit archery bull tag this year.I have not had an Az elk tag in 8 years, and if I don't draw a deer tag this year it will be 8 years since my last deer tag.Bubba I am with you on this ,so should every other HUNTER in Az.
 
For the archery hunt they should have a mandatory shooting requirment. If someone wants to hunt elk with a bow they should have three arrows that need to hit a paper plate at a set distance say forty yards. That will elimante the so called "closet hunter". If you fail to hit the target all three times then good luck next year.
 
1. Non issue here. People will complain both ways. I'm applying either way.
2. As long as the tag is reissued, I'm ok with it.
3. I'm fine with the current draw for the max point pool. I like having a shot at anything I apply for.
4. Not in favor-see #3.
5. I've helped on a lot and hunted a few different units for bull. IMO all bull hunts would be premium Rifle-early-archery-muzzleloader because there are great bulls in all units for all of these hunts. I am not in favor of paying any more money than I already do so I am not in favor of designating premium hunts.
 
Bubbas nice to see someone thinking about modifying the draw but it will fall on deaf ears. I have spoke at many meetings about this specific topic to no avail. Some of your ideas have merit though as as our population increases it's only going to get worse. They won't do the waiting period because it discourages participation. So I suggested that they have a 3-4 year waiting pool where the successful applicants would be grouped until their time elapsed yet would be elgible to draw a tag but only up to 5%. It definately would reduce the odds to those lucky souls that draw repeatedly.

They won't do skills tests either because it discourages participation. This was brought up when they took the archery cow tags. It has even been suggested that if you drew 1-2 species tags that you couldn't draw another tag in that year in general draw to spread the wealth so to speak or some modified form of this thought.

I think that you may have a small possibility of changing the process in that the make up of the commission will be changing in the future and I would urge you to speak out then. I even asked them to appoint a panel made up by a representative from the sportsmans groups and several unaffiliated citizens to study the draw and make some recomendations (no luck there either). There are a lot of people that are discouraged with the system and my wife and I last year had accumulated around 75 bonus points w/o a tag but drew an archery bull tag and lost 12 points. At this point I have given up in vain and really couldn't care what the hell they do. I have a neighbor that drew 2 rifle bull tags and 2 archery bull tags in the last 5 years and all of them were creme de la creme units that I've never been drawn for and a few deer tags and an antelope tag and a few pig tags and he thinks the system is great! That seems to be a lot of opportunity right there when so many have none. I offer this up to you to think about and maybe you can see what has failed in the past.


I will suggest one thing though if you plan on getting anything done I would watch what you say on public forums and present it in a positive fashion that would benefit a wider audience. The I've been screwed card has been played so many times it never warrants consideration and you're tuned out the minute that card hits the table. They have people within the department that monitor these forums! That way when they propose a change they already have an answer to your question when you speak that usually gets covered in the proposal and they look brilliant. Good luck!
 
Boskee,
Thank you for your response. You share the same frustrations as I it seems. I am also fully aware of the Department monitoring these discussion forums. However, like you referred to in your post history has shown that continuing to take the same action in dealing with the AZGFD is futile. It falls on deaf ears like you said. Any assumption that one new member here and one new member there on the Commission is going to significantly change the operation of the Department is naive at best and crazy at worst. The members come in to the seat with an agenda or quickly take on the agenda of the existing commission members, plain and simple. The only way to get any real change is if there is enough public support to FORCE a change not only in the appointment of the commission members but also in the the legislature as to the governing powers empowered to the Commission members. Will this happen......unlikely. But I still am tired of taking the Blue pill, living in the Matrix and acting like The Commission has our best interests at heart, because they don't.

Ed,
1. Of course people complain either way. There is always opposition to everything on some level. That doesn't mean that the alternative is thus not better than the current state. And just because you will put in either way doesn't mean other people will put in either way. And just because they choose not to put in does not mean that they must not really want to. Maybe there are circumstances in their lives where they can't put in either way and the online/credit card option affords them that opportunity. Is that really what's best?
2. agreed
3.As I stated in my point by increasing to 50% there is still ample opportunity to "have a shot at anything you apply for". However that extra 30% increases the odds of more evenly spread hunting opportunity. How is this not better for the "Greater Good".
4. Lets say you are one of the "lucky" ones to draw a premium tag with minimal points thus "leap-frogging" many equaly deserving people for a great experience. Do you mean to tell me you like the idea of that same lucky individual doing the same thing again within a 3 year period before the unlucky individual ever draws with Max points? Again, I ask is this better for the "Greater Good"
5. This brings up a good point. Determining what is a Premium Hunt is subjective. While I understand the point you were making about all units having "great" bulls, it is not true that the majority of the public have this same opinion, as the draw odds clearly point out. The designated Premium hunts could easily be determined based on an average of the last say 5-10 year draw odds and then determine a certain low draw odd % as the % to make a hunt "premium".

I mention this concept of "Greater Good". I realize that everyone has different moralistic beliefs whether religious or not. But for the most part they all revolve around this basic precept of a "Greater Good". I am curious how many people on this forum actually believe in this. Because in my opinion this is key in deciding if the current operation is ok or if changes need to be made.
 
1. We sort of agree. I actually like applying online due to convenience, but paper is ok too. I'm not sure hunting on credit is really "whats best". I will support either one.
2. We agree.
3. I could be swayed. Show me mathemetically how this would benefit everyone. I'm not smart enought so that leaves me out :)
4. Maybe, again mathematician anyone?
5. Nope.

Bubbas, I'm not being short here in my responses because it's not an important issue. This is actually how I am. Good post.
Ed
 
As a nonresident I do feel that AZ should reexamine the whole paper app process. If you look at how many were rejected you have to stop and think that this is lost revenue for the state. I am not in favor of the premium units costing more because sooner or later they will say that all of the units should be premium and we will end up paying more. I do think that a wating period should be instated and that should also apply to tags that are bought at auction also.
 
Thx Ed and Logslinger. I had a thought (and it is a recent one so haven't thought through a lot so help me out. I understand the reluctantcy to pay higher fees in a "Premium Hunt" structure. There is already the overwhelming perception, and reality for the most part, that hunting is becoming a rich man's sport. The main reason for instituting the premium hunt structure is fight The Departments desire to increase opportunity by increasing tag numbers. A lot of us feel their true motivation is to increase revenue. By increasing the tag fees in premium units you can offset not increasing tag numbers and thus maintain a "quality" management goal. However, the other objective of the Premium hunt theory in my opinion is to cause hunters to truly decide what their priorities or desires are when it comes to hunting frequency/opportunity and apply accordingly. Here is my recent thought, what if fees were not increased in those "premium" units but instead those were the units where the 3 year wait period was instituted? I would still prefer higher tag fees and less tags in those units but feel that the wait period may potentially be a compromise to start.
 
If every state went to the Nevada style draw process I think most would be happy. Their system is simply-perfect IMO. These other 1st and 2nd choices, with 20% going to highest points with a 10% cap is too complicated. I say this and I am or was max points for many states. At least in Nevada I feel I have an honest chance drawing a tag every year with 5 choices that my chance increase greatly every year due to the squaring of my bonus points.
 
Bubbas statistically if you institute a 3 year waiting period on only premium hunts it does little to improve anybody's odds and will make the odds worse in other units. You have to come up with a way to get more people drawn to really make a change that (IMO) will benefit more individuals and not impact the revenue stream of the department in a negative manner. Remember the legislature is sweeping heritage funding monies that they need. So you're correct about the revenues being important.

Don't forget the juniors as they are the key to huntings future.
 
I feel Nevada does have some good aspects to it's draw as well. Maybe not perfect, but it appears they have put a lot of creative thought into creating a system for the "Greater Good".

First, I admit I have not seen and therefore reviewed any statistics as to the effects of squaring points or exactly how often those with the most points actually draw tags. Anecdotally, it seems there are still a lot of people with the MOST points not drawing. However those folks are obviously putting in for VERY tough to draw hunts. I do like the idea of draw odds exponentially increasing as the factor (square) increases. Please correct me if wrong but Nevada still does still have a cap on non res tags although I can't say what the percentage is exactly (somewhere near 10%). I think that is a good percentage personally. What about instituting both squaring of points and a max hold over? If Az squared points I would be more inclined not to increase the hold over to 50% but rather increase still to 30%. I do feel there needs to be more of a reward for those with the most points although I to am not in favor of a total "preference" point system. That's why I feel a combination of squaring and "hold over" system would be a good compromise and better serve the "Greater Good".

Nevada does institute a wait period for certain species, correct? So that would mean you are for that. They have less animal numbers comparatively (elk) to warrant that though. It shows they are responding nicely to animal population vs people population (demand). We should do the same to some extent.
 
Boskee,
Great points. First, from what I can see there are ample opportunities for involving juniors. I won't list them all but if a parent/adult really wants to get a kid introduced to and maintained on hunting they can. No changes necessary there in my opinion, other than there needing to be more involved parents out there to take advantage of the opportunities but that is another discussion. We will see how these new OTC junior turkey tags go.

The revenue is important. Simple economics says one either has to have a higher amount of product sold at a lower cost or a lower amount of product at a higher cost. Thus the crossroads or dilemma presented to not only Arizona but every other state, and this is key, where the demand is greater than the resource. The only way the greatest amount of profit can be achieved is if one of these methods is 100% achieved. You cannot do both or in effect compromise on both methods and still achieve maximum profit. However, in the case of trying to appease a multitude of people or in this case the hunting faction of not only Arizona residents but non residents alike there has to be some level of compromise to make the group happy. Now how do you achieve compromise or where do you establish the level of compromise. In a simple answer, in politics I believe this should be achieved through a democratic process whereby the public is given the best chance to express it's voice, the voice of the people listened to, and then the majority of voice/sentiment catered to. Honestly, I feel the Arizona Game and Fish has done a reasonable job in allowing for public voicing. On the same token, I adamantly DO NOT believe they have done a sufficient or honest job in trying to listen to that majority voice and instituting a program to reflect that majority opinion. In other words, they place their best foot forward to make the appearance they are listening to the people but then ultimately base their actions on their own (as a Commission) opinions and desires. Unacceptable. I would love to be persuaded otherwise on this feeling but the evidence is overwhelming.

So in a sense I am simplifying the majority opinion into the "Greater Good" i refer to. This is not really that simple as the majority is not always informed or educated enough to base the "Greater Good" on their opinion but it is a starting point. I think we could all agree that the "Greater Good" should take into account the welfare and sustainability of the wildlife. The "greater Good" should therefore not sacrifice the welfare of the wildlife for the majority opinion if these two conflict.
For example, the strategy of lower tag numbers, higher fees, and more "quality" animals/experiences does not conflict with the welfare of the wildlife. It does conflict with the strategy of increased hunting opportunities and thus more hunters in the field. Increased hunters in the field does not necessarily appeal to the public opinion aspect of the "Greater Good" if the true, discovered majority opinion does not want more hunters in the field but rather more quality animals/experiences reached from less hunters in the field. Conversely, more hunters in the field CAN, not necessarily WILL, lead to a negative effect on the welfare of the wildlife and thus additional negative effect on the "Greater Good".

There cannot be a program that serves the "Greater Good" unless the "Greater Good" is first established by ACCURATELY and DILIGENTLY discovering and monitoring the wildlife population. Second, the majority opinion needs to be discovered and monitored. Most importantly, once the "greater good" is established the governing agency, in this case AZGFD, needs to have the knowledge,competence, and integrity to respond to and carry out a program to comply with and serve this "Greater Good". On all accounts, except for discovering the majority opinion, I feel the AZGFD Commission has failed us as the People.
 
First of all, I was drawn this year for early archery bull(I am not simply venting because I wasn't drawn). But I feel this is a topic that many other sportsmen feel passionately about, and have many ideas regarding.

I agree that the Game and Fish department needs some overhaul with their draw system AND more importantly, their COMMISSION ACCOUNTABILITY. We can discuss what changes we feel are most beneficial to our hunting community all we want. However, the biggest challenge to us is to figure out how the hunters in Arizona, as well as the whole country, can make the commission accountable to the public.

As those have said, most suggestions from the public fall on deaf ears. Remember the ADA survey that the commission completely disregarded and discarded a couple years ago? What a slap in the face that was to our public hunting community.

How can we institute change in a flawed government department, if the public has no say in the processes? The commission act as if they answer to nobody. They are not elected by the public. They are not confirmed by the public. Who holds them accountable? Why do we hold elections for state congress, public school boards, and other state officials but not the Game and Fish commission? Don't we live in a democratic country where the government works FOR the public?
 
LAST EDITED ON Apr-16-09 AT 04:15PM (MST)[p]I was drawn for a unit 9 archery bull hunt this year, so my comments about changing the drawing process are coming from a different point of view. Even having drawn a tag this year I still believe the AZ drawing process needs to be changed. Having almost no chance of getting a tag with less than max points is very disappointing. At least in NV I feel like there's always a chance I could pull a decent tag. Then the squaring of points only makes the chances better as you build points.
 
LAST EDITED ON Apr-16-09 AT 01:58PM (MST)[p]Bwht4X4, There actually is a chance a nonresident can draw a tag w/o max points as long as they're not putting in for the premier hunts or bull tags. Case in point last year a guy from NV had an archery bull permit in the unit I was hunting and the previous year he and his brother were drawn for rifle bull tags in the same unit. His brother wasn't drawn and they applied separately the 2nd year. I believe he was from your state.
There are numerous NR posters on here that have been drawn w/o the maximum number of points for quite a few hunts while the residents were not drawn with more bonus points so that's pretty fair. In the premier hunts it's so statistically remote that it simply isn't going to happen with the 20/10% and rightfully so. There are literally thousands of residents that have never had an opportunity to hunt these hunts. I wouldn't hold my breath for that ever to get changed. We have way too many residents applying for tags just like you do.
 
Bubbas thanks for the response. As to the junior tag issue they only have a short time to draw these tags and some of them have had multiple tags for the same specie and other species. Wouldn't it seem more fair to place a limit on them and possibly then make them go into the big draw pool? If this actually is a tool for hunter recruitment and retention they have to get exposed and experience hunting or they will lose interest because they can't get drawn. In order for you to be able to change our current system it would appear that making it appealing to more individuals would be advantageous in all aspects. Just offering you a different perspective that may appeal to a broader base so to speak.
 
This is where there needs to be compromise to serve the "Greater Good". I believe the "majority opinion" feels there should be some chance of drawing a tag in a draw even without max points. That chance is always there if it is not a "preference" point system.

However, for every person who feels strongly about having a chance at drawing a "decent" tag, there are two people with maximum points who never get lucky enough to draw that "decent" tag and they have invested more than the person who draws multiple decent tags. I ask, how is this serving the "Greater Good". I argue there must be an appropriately distributed compromise. Squaring points without having a set "hold over/max point" tag percentage does not serve enough people who have a large financial investment. This is not good for the maintenance of the "Greater Good".

Remember the Department wants people to play the draw for revenue sake. Just as having no chance to draw a tag without max points (preference point system) will discourage people to apply, not having assurance that by applying every year to build points one will draw within a REASONABLE amount of time will discourage people from applying also. This would be OK with the individual with selfish motivations but not OK for the "Greater Good" and agreeably not OK with the Department who wants to maximize draw revenue.
 
It would be a tough sell, but one way to make sure that everyone has a chance to draw any unit is to get rid of the "up to 10%" nonresident language. Find a set percentage and then draw residents and non-residents in seperate draws with a 50% or higher Max Bonus pool on the NR side. You may only need to do this in the premium units wher the NR cap gets filled in the Bonus pool every year.

Take unit 9 early archery for example. This year up to 10 tags could be NR and 99.99% chance that they filled in the max pool. That means a NR out of the max pool had no chance. Why not give 5 to the max and 5 to all other. Could be 6 and 4, 7 and 3, or 8 and 2. At least there would be a chance, however small.

Just wait one or two more years to push this through as I should be in the max pool for unit 9 next year (14 bps). Hah.
 
Pruney some us suggested something similiar by leaving 10-20% out of max point pool but it fell on deaf ears and they put the up to 10% in over protest. The commission at that time didn't even want to grant that liberal a percentage. Look at your state and your TULE elk for example not too many NR have ever had the chance at them and that will probably be the case into the future. It is what it is and if you want better odds and a better chance you will have to pick a lessor unit as I suggested above to the other guy before those units max pools get filled up. They aren't going to reduce the residents odds on those hunts any worse than they already are. Hey your pretty lucky I have never had a 9,10, 1, tag for elk and I've lived here 50 years always got drawn for my second choice with like 7-10 pts. There simply isn't a solution that will please everyone with so many applicants and so few tags.
 
How will the system you propose be better? Because you and others think it will? I'm sure there will be others who also think it is "fine."

I've been a resident of AZ all my life. Been applying for bull elk for 19 years. Last year was the first year I've ever had a tag. My family and friends have had no less than 3 bull tags each since 2001. Sure I don't like not having a tag. But, I am happy with the way the draw is, because I believe my time will come and I will be the one to draw several bull tags in only a few years.


























"I'll keep my guns, freedom, and money.
You can keep the "change"!"
 
If you could get the bod at game and fish on the ballot it would change all of this.Pete Cimerillo did not want any part of that and he was the pres at the ADA last year.I have drawn a lot of archery bull elk tags in this state over the last 40 years.Many with no points and some back to back.Not all have been in super units but still a Az archery bull tag is great.I have max points for sheep and have guided many hunters the drew the sheep tag with just 3 or 4 points.Talk about getting an earfull most would have liked to book with another giude after hearing my bitching about how crappy our draw system is!!!Nevada does not let you apply for 5 year after a lope tag,ten years after a bull tag if you kill and five if you don't.That seams fiar to me if I ever draw that 231 tag up there?I have hunted just about every unit in this state and ther are many premuim units for elk and deer.Sure a boomer could come from any but not many produce in numbers like the best.Elk 10-9-3c-8-27-1-.Deer 12a-13a-13b-12b these tags should cost more. I can't understand why a guy would get a 12aw tag and shoot a 12 inch forky,if this tag was 400 bucks this would take most of these type of hunters out of kaibab.I have also seen some strip huntes do the same just not in the bab numbers.
 
sremim,
I have tried to be as thorough as I know how in explaining the reasons why I feel my suggestions would improve the current draw process. I have asked in return for "specific" reasons as to why they would or would not be an improvement. I have tried to come to my conclusions based on research, facts, and evidence. On top of that I have tried to consider what it best for the most people. I thought I was actually being considerate of others not selfish in thought like you suggest.

I recognize that some personalities prefer a game of chance. I for one feel that with all that is on the line to participate in the hunting world these days there should be more predictability and assurance than what there is currently. How is this not better for anyone. Even with the changes I suggest you could still be that lucky SOB in a few years and draw multiple elk tags in within a few years.....but odds say no. If you could lower the amount of years it took to be guaranteed a tag and at the same time still have a chance to draw any year, how is that not better? I would be interested in hearing an answer other than it is fine the way it is.
 
LAST EDITED ON Apr-16-09 AT 10:32PM (MST)[p]I am puzzled. If Arizona has such a bad system, how did they manage to get almost as many applicants this year (in a deep recession) as they did during the ?boom? years? How has Arizona continued to produce trophies every year? including drought years. Why does every non-resident start every post with a complaint and then follow it up with ?but I hope I get my coveted Arizona tag next year?.

Bubbas, I disagree with you on almost every point. Each of your recommendations steers the process into more of a nice orderly preference point system that rewards those with the most dollars to play the game (high bonus point holders/trophy pricing), increases the total population of applicants (online apps) and decreases the odds of someone that hasn't had the luxury of applying every year the chance that they will get a chance to hunt in the great state of Arizona (increasing the 20% holdovers).

Arizona is a top quality state and the number of people wanting tags will always far outstrip the supply of tags. The goal for ?common good? and ?fairness? is ridiculous as there simply are not enough tags to accommodate everyone that wants one. Those that apply for incredibly low odds hunts and point to others that are more successful with lesser hunts sound either intentionally misleading or clueless. Either way, I respect but disagree with your opinions and here are the details.

1. ONLINE DRAW PROCESS- I DISAGREE- As for rejected applications, although unfortunate, they are a relatively low percentage of the total population (3-4%). I agree the online draw process is convenient (and would minimize rejected apps) however it would be difficult to do the draw online and require checks up front (matching mailed checks with the online applications later would be very difficult). The real issue is the ability for applicants to apply with credit cards. Allowing people to apply with credit cards would increase the number of applications for limited tags like trophy bull and sheep thereby limiting opportunity even more. It isn't about AZGFD being averse to technology; it is about having some controls in place so that every father in the US doesn't put his 14 year old kid in for a sheep tag. This would be a real possibility now that prices for youth licenses have been steeply discounted over the last couple of years (non-res youth licenses are the same as resident youth ? even cheaper than an adult resident license). The real sad thing is seeing inexperienced or uncommitted hunters end up with tags that more committed hunters have been trying to get for a very long time. I have two young kids and I think it would be unfair if they got a sheep tag before they really understood how special it really was. I think allowing relatively unprepared people to apply for these coveted tags with a credit card would be a bad idea.

2. TURNING TAGS BACK IN- I DISAGREE ? See my ?uncommitted hunter? reference above. I don't have much of an issue with turning tags in morally however I believe unused tags are factored into the individual unit allocations right now. My guess is that tag numbers would need to be adjusted down slightly to accommodate this. I think re-issuing these tags would be difficult as it would require a separate draw (and dates established for when the no-shows would need to notify AZGFD they would not be able to go). Bubba, I am sure you would advocate being ?fair? and giving the tags to ?the highest bonus point? holders. Since there are probably several people with the same number of bonus points for each hunt it would require a separate draw in and of itself to fairly distribute the tag. It is also quite likely that some of eligible bonus point holders applied on a group application and are unwilling to go without others in their group. Overall I think this would be a difficult plan to institute equitably. Right now the rules around tag transfers (only to your children or grandchildren) are very clear and expanding this would seem to open the door for some corruption (a lot of surrendered tags would mysteriously find their way to the relatives of game and fish employees I would suspect).

3. INCREASE HOLD OVER PERCENTAGE- I DISAGREE - I have always been lukewarm to the 20% holdover and knew from the beginning it would create problems (like the fact that the Strip hunts are now essentially preference point hunts for non-residents right now). The pre-holdover days were nice as most informed hunters knew that those with the most points had an incrementally better chance of drawing a tough tag. The holdover was a token gesture to keep the early bull applicants from screaming that they would never get a tag, it was very short sighted in my opinion. I understand AZGFD?s position that holding over some tags would make sense to some degree because it keeps non-residents loyal and keeps application fee money rolling in. I even think it would be somewhat unfair to repeal it at this point, I still think it is lame. I think increasing the holdover above 20% would undermine the beauty of what makes the Arizona draw so special. Arizona is not a preference point state and I hope to God it never becomes one. The current 20% hold percentage rides the line and increasing the holdover beyond 20% would push things into preference point territory. Also, since non-residents are still (rightfully) limited to 10% of tags for any given hunt, this change would largely impact a fairly narrow band of resident applicants. Anyone complaining about draw odds should become familiar with the concept of supply and demand and align their draw strategy away from the trophy units if hunting more than once every decade or two is a priority for them.

4. 3 YEAR WAIT PERIOD ON PREMIUM ESTABLISHED HUNTS- I DISAGREE - It won't make much of a statistical difference for the hard to draw units and would seem downright punitive to those that apply for more middle of the road units (like me). Like the 20% holdover, this would be more of a token gesture to the whiners that refuse to apply for units that have more reasonable draw odds and I believe would actually encourage more people to apply for the really hard to draw units (since people would shoot for the stars since they would have fewer opportunities in their lifetime to hunt). I think this would be a very bad plan for most of us in the long run.

5. INSTITUTE PREMIUM DRAW HUNTS- I DISAGREE ? As others have said, the term premium is subjective. The line between a ?premium? and a ?standard? unit could be based on economic or special interests that are inconsistent with the goals of the average hunter. This could open the door for AZGFD to apply supply and demand pricing to other hunts. Since Arizona is often viewed as one of (possibly ?the?) best state for some species there could be some reasonable comparison between the cost of a regular draw ?premium? tag and an ?Indian reservation? tag. We all know that Indian reservation tags can cost $10,000 or more so going down this road is bad for the majority of us. After all, where do we draw the line on premium pricing? If the premium hunts are popular, the law of economics would suggest the price needs to go up. It could also be used to steer demand from expensive ?premium? units to ?better value? units (like the ones I apply for). It would also present some logistical issues because it would require applicants to select EITHER ?trophy? or ?standard? when applying on an application since the pricing could vary based on the hunt. Overall I think this would complicate what is already an already complicated draw process. The reality is that ?on-average? the time and cost required to acquire a premium tag is already higher than the cost to acquire a lesser tag (more years applying and more licenses purchased).

I am sure most of your ideas are very popular among the TAG servicing companies (the more automated and credit card based the system the cheaper it is for them to process applications). An increase in the holdover percentage would also promote more non-resident interest in Arizona thereby increasing applications and volume for these companies. Giving back tags would also make it more convenient for casual hunters to pick a better time to hunt. These all seem like nice thingson the surface?unless you are a die-hard committed Arizona resident hunter like me. Sorry for the longwinded post, I am a rookie to this board.

Cheers
Javihammer (AKA ?Ryan?)
 
Ryan,
Thank you for taking the time to construct a well thought out and delivered response to the points I proposed. I just read it. There are some remarks I would like to make to them if you don't mind but being that it is 10:30 and I have a long day ahead of me tomorrow I will have to make them tomorrow sometime. Again thanks for the post. We need more logical thinkers on this site even if there are differing opinions to help balance out all the illogical posts.
 
Boskee,

I fully agree that it is a hard sell that has not and will not happen.

"Look at your state and your TULE elk for example not too many NR have ever had the chance at them and that will probably be the case into the future."

Unfortunately, not too many residents either. This resident will likely never draw a tag for one. Unfortunately in 2003 I was on a little 6 month vacation overseas courtesy of the war and failed to get my app in that year, year two of the point system. I am applying for low applicant single tag units so the pref pool does not play, but I have never been overly lucky in the draws so I will not hold my breath.
 
LAST EDITED ON Apr-17-09 AT 12:09PM (MST)[p]Javi, I think you posted a few very good points especially about the pricing which I happen to agree with you 1000% on. I also agree with your point on the tag return and premium draw hunts. In reality the internet application process will happen I'm afraid so we'll just have to suck it up on that but you made some good points that I don't disagree with . It will save the department time, money and could actually facilitate quicker processing. I think with a little careful tweaking we may actually be able to come up with a waiting period that still allows for a repeat tag but at substantially reduced odds. This is more of a perception issue but seeing guys draw 3 or 4 tags so quickly is frustrating and makes people believe the system is unfair. A set % would put that to rest and probably remove the biggest negative out there about the draw.

As to our quality nobody will dispute that point now but given the commissions propensity to keep throwing more tags out there eventually it can and will become an issue and our quality will decline we are already reducing our bull/cow ratios and buck/d oe ratios with the additional permits.

As to the draw system being bad our department is one of the few business out there that can have a 75% rate of unhappy customers (undrawn applicants) that keep beating the doors down to hunt.

The laws of supply and demand are such that in order to keep participation going with the residents and keep interest going your customers actually need to experience what your selling. Hunting is losing it's base nationwide and eventually along with that erosion goes a large part of your funding state and federal. When the money starts to go so do the programs and eventually the resource. People are becoming frustrated with the fact that they can't hunt. I know, pick up a bow and then you can go and participate and up till now that's been true. But the commission is shifting their thinking on this and putting more units to the draw because archers were becoming too successful= declining participation once again. Then we have those that wish to bait which will further deplete the resource and lead to fewer permits.

Couple this with the fact we have game management plans in place that actually are static, in that they're not proposing growth which can actually be detrimental to quality and quantity and with increased permits we again deplete the resource. Factor in a 10 year drought and predation the situation isn't getting better it's eroding before our eyes. So now we have millions of more residents many of which moved here to hunt and they don't get to go and they're voters and eventually they'll be posturing for AZGFD to get under the politicans control. WE sure as HELL don't want that because then you'll have bigger issues. I like my department and the commission left out of the political arena. Once we go there we have way more problems that we do now.

So while I appreciate your position on the above please understand the time has come for us to at least take some time to look at things and see if we may be able to come up with some sort of a plan to distribute the wealth around a little better or somebody will take the bull by the horns and tell us exactly how they want it done from their chairs at the capitol.
I don't know about you but once they get their talons in you it's never a better situation. Selfish thinking IMO would be wanting things to remain as they are today based purely on the luck of the draw instead of coming up with a modified plan that actually may be able to get a larger part of your customer base involved by balancing the opportunity in some manner. That way there's far less of a chance that we will wind up with a legislature running the show and bigger issues. You're 100% correct in that we will never have enough tags to satify the demand but maybe with a little tweaking we can put more individuals in the field in shorter timeframes to keep their interest alive and reduce the odds of the legislature getting involved. It's a bridge we'll most likely have to cross at some point as things evolve, is my point.
 
Thanks for your response Boskee, I think we agree on more points than we disagree. I hate to admit it but I think online applications will be back soon. Hopefully they will not include credit card capability.

My main point of contention is applying these waiting period policies across the board when the demographics for each of these tags are so different.

I see the Arizona hunt community falling into about seven different groups. Some of my stereotypes are a little extreme but they represent a cross section of what I have observed in the 26 years I have been mostly bowhunting in Arizona (I am 37, got my hunter education card in 1982).

?The Bone Collectors - Guys that want a 400 bull on their wall no matter what. Most non-residents fall into this category (and justifiably so since the costs are higher for them). These guys only apply for early bull rifle/muzzleloader/bow hunts in the ?Big 5? trophy units. This community is full of smart people with lots of money so there are always proposals in the works to increase holdover percentages and ways to simplify the draw process for them. They want a guaranteed return on their investment everywhere they apply (and they do apply everywhere, many use tag application services). These are the guys that keep the guides, tag services and Game and Fish attorneys in business.

?The Freewheelers ? These are also known as applicants B thru D. The ?My family has always hunted unit (fill-in-the-blank) and this is the only place I am willing to apply for? hunters. These residents generally apply on group applications and have little interest in understanding the yearly tag allotments and draw cycles. They often include new hunters such as in-laws and friends. Sometimes ?the family hunt unit? is a hard-to-draw ?Bone Collector? unit so these people are often frustrated that they cannot get drawn. They say things like ?Grandpa got drawn there every year back in the 70?s, what the heck is going on?. They often complain about tag price increases, conspiracy theories, government corruption and the limited value of bonus points since they have a limited understanding of the process.

?The Researchers - Guys that would love a 400 bull but cannot stand the thought of waiting more than 5 years between tags. These desk jockeys are usually residents that painstakingly review the draw odds looking for bull units with some small competitive advantage of draw potential (like a big tag increase). They know the draw process and rules like a Federal judge. They usually settle for little known early archery or late rifle tags in lesser known units. These guys will often take a cow tag if the drought gets long enough for them. These do-it-yourselfers would rather stick a broadhead in their eye than hire a guide to help them. These guys dont brag or talk very much, that would be counter-strategic.

?The Meat Hunters ? These crusty old coots love the meat and need an almost yearly hunt fix. They have killed plenty of antlered animals and value the opportunity to hunt more than the chance to hang more bone on the wall. ?You cant eat antlers? is a common theme for these people. They kill a cow on opening day every year and live in quiet bliss while others complain. They are usually the most skilled hunters in the forest, they guide for Bone Collectors in the off-season.

?The Bonus Wife ? (Disclaimer ? Women can also be any other demographic on this list) - This sacrificial lamb is a person whos responsibility it is to collect bonus points so that other members of the family have a better chance at picking up a tag on a group application at some point in the future. She has little interest in hunting and knows that any great tag she draws will likely be signed over to her 16 year old son. However the odds of her getting a tag are slim because her husband will keep buying her bonus points until the year he needs her points for his own application. Her role is to sign her bonus point application and deliver the rest of the envelopes to Game and Fish before the 7 PM.

?The Cow Kid ? A kid that recently graduated from a hunter education course and is looking forward to a crack at their first big game animal. They are thrilled with a youth cow tag, a fat doe, cottontail or a squirrel. Whatever the quarry, it is a chance for personal attention from Dad. These people often turn into ?Researchers? or ?Meat Hunters? later in life because their drive to hunt is so compelling. Female Cow Kids rarely end up being Bonus Wives.

?Daddy?s Triggerman ? This kid likes to hunt but knows that anything less than a trophy is going to make Bone Collector Dad unhappy. Daddy wants a good photograph to post on Monster Grizzly and that forky isn't going to cut it. Any trophy killed is a testament to Dad?s superior hunting skills (or so his Dad thinks) This kid may stick with hunting but may also leave the sport due to burnout. Thank god for rifle slings because Daddy likes to take the gun away if he misses on the first shot. Who really shot that sheep after all? Many Triggermen turn to ballet later in life.

In a nutshell, a person?s point of view is directly tied to their demographic. I started life as a Cow Kid and I am now more of a Researcher than anything else. Maybe I will be a Meat Hunter in 10-15 years (unlikely since I kind of like the research). Either way, I do not want the interests and policies that dictate other demographics to infringe on my own.

I like the fact that I can straddle multiple demographics on my elk application. I work hard to understand the rules and see no reason why my dedication shouldn't provide me with an increased opportunity to pull a good tag. Dumbing down the system by applying (oppressive) waiting periods or higher tag allotments across the board would be unfair in my opinion.

So, I think a lot of these rants and raves stem from Bone Collectors and Freewheelers living next to Meat Hunters and Researchers. They just assume other people are also Bone Collectors and Freewheelers and fail to consider the fact that their neighbors are pulling lesser quality meat tags. Besides, us Researchers rarely share too many details about the tags we pull.

One last point for those that may have pegged me as a chauvinist. My wife drew a late unit 10 rifle tag and I am looking forward to watching her drop the hammer on a big stinky bull this year. No Bonus Wife in my house.

Cheers,
Javihammer
 
Javi bravo that was one entertaining and yet accurate description of the profiles of an applicant! I don't have a bonus wife either and she loves to hunt elk with a bow. If we had animal numbers where they were at the higher levels in the past most of this would be moot.
I like you feel the system isn't totally broken but a minor buffing up of the chrome may make her shine a bit better for everyone. Little tweaks can make a huge perceptional difference and at the same time balance it a bit and as we grow it will become a much larger issue than it is today. There are lots of new family's here that have kids that will be approaching hunting age in the not too distant future. The current draw was set up over 20 years ago and sometimes you have to refine things a bit to meet the demand of your customers. Statistically they make very little difference in some regards except to those it would allow to draw a tag who otherwise didn't and to them it's priceless. Bubbas has some good thoughts in his ideas and there are more Bubbas' out there then successful applicants. That's something we must never lose sight of or deem unworthy of consideration especially when in reality, their monies are every bit as essential to the department as those of the successful applicant's.
 
+1 to Javihammer's response. I find a waiting period especially onerous. At my age, waiting to apply for another tag may mean I am done hunting in AZ. I am a Researcher just so I can have a few more hunts before I'm relegated to camp cook and trophy duster!
 
WARNING! LOL this is a long post, however admittedly i am bias in saying worth the read. It is long because I copied "javihammer's" response to my recommended changes and then responded myself to his concerns. I did this because he actually took the time to reason as to why he felt the changes would be negative. He had well thought out and stated concerns. Anecdotally, it seems as though his replies are similar to those who would oppose the recommended changes. His statements are in quotations and my comments are in parenthesis following his quotations.


?I am puzzled. If Arizona has such a bad system, how did they manage to get almost as many applicants this year (in a deep recession) as they did during the ?boom? years??(There are many answers to explain this question that I think you and most people can figure out. Don?t need to go into deep discussion on them but you know that just because people have a desire to hunt AZ and continue to apply is NOT evidence one way or another as to the approval of it's draw system. That is poor logic!) ?How has Arizona continued to produce trophies every year? including drought years.? (What does this mean? This is in reference to the management plan, NOT the draw. Nobody is questioning whether or not the state has trophies, but rather how the draw should be run in order to hunt those trophies. That is such a broad statement I don't even know how to tackle it. Just because there are trophies does not mean the herds are being managed properly but could very well be despite the current management plan. Every state has trophies but to what level? Do we want our resource to be on that same level as some other states that don't have a conservative management program? If you say you want a more liberal management plan then why bring up the point of the State having such great trophies? Which is your true beliefs and desires? Eventually a liberal draw program will lead to decreased trophy opportunity. With this current management plan it will take YEARS before the true consequences are realized but again that is a management plan issue not the draw. Lets talk management later cause there is much to discuss there to.) ?Why does every non-resident start every post with a complaint and then follow it up with ?but I hope I get my coveted Arizona tag next year?.? (Same as above).
?Bubbas, I disagree with you on almost every point. Each of your recommendations steers the process into more of a nice orderly preference point system that rewards those with the most dollars to play the game (high bonus point holders/trophy pricing), increases the total population of applicants (online apps) and decreases the odds of someone that hasn't had the luxury of applying every year the chance that they will get a chance to hunt in the great state of Arizona (increasing the 20% holdovers).?
(I will address these comments under each point).
Arizona is a top quality state and the number of people wanting tags will always far outstrip the supply of tags. (True comment).
?The goal for ?common good? and ?fairness? is ridiculous as there simply are not enough tags to accommodate everyone that wants one.? (I think you will want to rethink this comment. Probably not what you really meant. Are you saying that when there is an issue of supply vs. demand that you can't be ?fair? and try to come to a resolution that is best to the ?greater good?? Boy, if you use that logic then in the true business model as you refer to above it would be TOTALLY acceptable to just auction all the tags to the highest bidders! You may not be able to please everyone but you CAN determine and follow a plan that is best and MOST fair, not totally fair, to the greater majority and greater good.)
?Those that apply for incredibly low odds hunts and point to others that are more successful with lesser hunts sound either intentionally misleading or clueless.? (Yes this does occur but you know and many have listed on here examples how people draw multiple HIGH DEMAND tags in a short amount of time. In fact, this has been their position in that they like the idea that one day they can be the lucky one to draw those tags in a row.) ?Either way, I respect but disagree with your opinions and here are the details.? (Fair enough, thank you for taking the time to list your reasons so we all can try and understand different points of views).

?1. ONLINE DRAW PROCESS- I DISAGREE- As for rejected applications, although unfortunate, they are a relatively low percentage of the total population (3-4%).? (Are you saying that if there was a system that could eliminate the majority of application errors which would equate to thousands of people being happy that their application wasn?t rejected and they still earned a bonus point would not be better? These people have sacrificed a lot to play a game that they had no say in and continue to do so because their desire to hunt Arizona outweighs the hardship from putting in. Are you telling me that it is not worth our time and effort to try and better the system to minimize this hardship to people? If you say no to this answer and the majority of people are with you in that answer then we are wasting our time even discussing this. If it is worth our time to try and come up with a way to minimize hardship to people then we should find out exactly what we can do which is how I will respond to your post underneath. I will tell you that to realize what I am saying requires everyone to look past their immediate, protective response of ?everything is fine the way it is?)
? I agree the online draw process is convenient (and would minimize rejected apps) however it would be difficult to do the draw online and require checks up front (matching mailed checks with the online applications later would be very difficult). The real issue is the ability for applicants to apply with credit cards. Allowing people to apply with credit cards would increase the number of applications for limited tags like trophy bull and sheep thereby limiting opportunity even more.? (First off, by making that statement you have to recognize that to some extent you are OK with the belief that a better financial status/position should allow you a better opportunity to hunting. I am not saying that personally I disagree with that but it is contradicting to some previous comments. But, if you wanted people to really consider their true intent to apply by having to front funds then this can still be done with credit cards. Other states already do this like Colorado and New Mexico. I just put in for New Mexico with a credit card and for sheep and ibex the cards were charged at time of application. What do you have to say in response to this? This would eliminate the application errors and also allow people to make payments on their purchase through a credit card. If someone were still in opposition to CC process with these changes then their true desires can be boiled down to selfishness or just old fashion opposition to change.)
?It isn't about AZGFD being averse to technology; it is about having some controls in place so that every father in the US doesn't put his 14 year old kid in for a sheep tag. This would be a real possibility now that prices for youth licenses have been steeply discounted over the last couple of years (non-res youth licenses are the same as resident youth ? even cheaper than an adult resident license). The real sad thing is seeing inexperienced or uncommitted hunters end up with tags that more committed hunters have been trying to get for a very long time. I have two young kids and I think it would be unfair if they got a sheep tag before they really understood how special it really was. I think allowing relatively unprepared people to apply for these coveted tags with a credit card would be a bad idea.? (My response above would resolve your concern about some applying altogether but does not resolve some applying for the ?coveted? tags as you say. I understand what you mean in that being a frustration because it is one of mine and many but your logic is contradicting as how to prevent it. On one hand you say you want to limit that happening but then on the other hand you argue for less control. I am a little confused to be honest. The ONLY way to try and separate, for lack of a better word, serious, more prepared hunters from unprepared hunters from drawing more coveted tags is by instituting some sort of premium structure. This does not have to be done by only money. I am OK not increasing funds, in fact I would prefer that also. The increase in funds is just one way to appease the Departments desire for more revenue and not do this by increasing tags. I will expound on this later.)

?2. TURNING TAGS BACK IN- I DISAGREE ? See my ?uncommitted hunter? reference above. I don't have much of an issue with turning tags in morally however I believe unused tags are factored into the individual unit allocations right now.? ( Boy, if unused tags are factored into the current tag allocation then I have even less faith in the Department in running a competent program as I already have. How do they predict how much this happens and how often does it happen in a rifle hunt vs a bow hunt or bull hunt vs. a cow hunt? Entirely unscientific. Speaking along the lines of unscientific, how in the world do we not have a mandatory hunt report for each tag holder?) ?My guess is that tag numbers would need to be adjusted down slightly to accommodate this. I think re-issuing these tags would be difficult as it would require a separate draw (and dates established for when the no-shows would need to notify AZGFD they would not be able to go).? (Not true. Very easy to do. When the draw is run the first time there are alternates drawn at same time, ie the people with the draw number that was just below those that drew the tags when filled. This information is kept for each hunt. And it does not require more man-power. It's all in the software. Not difficult unless the Department is in fact opposed to technology, which you already dismissed). ?Bubba, I am sure you would advocate being ?fair? and giving the tags to ?the highest bonus point? holders. Since there are probably several people with the same number of bonus points for each hunt it would require a separate draw in and of itself to fairly distribute the tag. (that was a shot at my fairness take, does not take into account reality. I am for the max point holders getting an INCREASE of tags, NOT ALL. Think, the tags would have already been issued to those with max points. That quota would already have been filled. After that all is fair as proposed. What do you think the likelihood is of one of those max point tag holders turning back in a tag? Almost none, unless a true catastrophe happened that truly warranted turning it back in. In this rare instance those very few tags would just go to the next alternate on the list. That is still fair. Lets be reasonable here. Without the turn back policy, the tag would go to waste and they would loose all those points and thus all that investment of prior money was for naught. Even more argument as to why this policy should be instituted!) ?It is also quite likely that some of eligible bonus point holders applied on a group application and are unwilling to go without others in their group. (The alternate list would not contain group applicants. That is what you decide by putting in as a group, it decreases your odds of drawing. That is a personal, conscious decision.) ?Overall I think this would be a difficult plan to institute equitably.? (My previous comments to your concerns are viable and easy to institute changes that prove how a ?turn back policy? would NOT be difficult to institute equitably. And I do not see how this hurts anybody and only helps many!) ?Right now the rules around tag transfers (only to your children or grandchildren) are very clear and expanding this would seem to open the door for some corruption (a lot of surrendered tags would mysteriously find their way to the relatives of game and fish employees I would suspect).? (Come on, if you are going to use this logic then what is preventing the game and fish employees from doing that now? Which I wouldn't put past them by the way but has nothing to do with whether a turn back policy should be instituted or not. In fact, that is one of my concerns with the paper draw. Having a computer draw online on a computer leaves more of a ?paper? trail to monitor such dishonest action! It is also much more efficient and SHOULD allow for a more timely draw.)

?3. INCREASE HOLD OVER PERCENTAGE- I DISAGREE ? I have always been lukewarm to the 20% holdover and knew from the beginning it would create problems (like the fact that the Strip hunts are now essentially preference point hunts for non-residents right now).? (On one hand you seem disinterested in the concerns of non-residents but when it comes to supporting your position you use them as an example? This is only because of the 10% non-resident cap, which you and most of us residents are in favor of. Do you want to do away with that? Also, using your logic, if they are concerned with this effect those concerned non-residents can apply for units where the 10% non-res cap is not achieved under the holdover. They can find these hunts out doing the ?research? you so support. But if you wanted to minimize this effect you could keep the same the holdover % or lessen it for the non-residents. Although I would bet the majority of non-res would not want this.) ?The pre-holdover days were nice as most informed hunters knew that those with the most points had an incrementally better chance of drawing a tough tag. The holdover was a token gesture to keep the early bull applicants from screaming that they would never get a tag, it was very short sighted in my opinion.? (Not just for early bull applicants- how bout sheep, antelope, north of canyon Mulies, etc. And how was this short sighted? It was a valid concern. It doesn't matter how many points you occurred, if you kept putting in for tough to draw hunts without having a holdover then it is entirely plausible that those with max points still would not draw EVER in some cases and in a totally unreasonable amount of time in many cases. And to be honest that argument of well then don't put in for those tough to draw hunts is a ?cop-out? and laughable for so many reasons it doesn't even warrant a response.) ?I understand AZGFD?s position that holding over some tags would make sense to some degree because it keeps non-residents loyal and keeps application fee money rolling in. I even think it would be somewhat unfair to repeal it at this point, I still think it is lame. I think increasing the holdover above 20% would undermine the beauty of what makes the Arizona draw so special. Arizona is not a preference point state and I hope to God it never becomes one. The current 20% hold percentage rides the line and increasing the holdover beyond 20% would push things into preference point territory.? ( LOL, Well lets see, if having no hold over tags is a 100% bonus point system and having all hold over tags would be a 100% preference point system then I would say that increasing the hold over % above 20% and no more than 50% would still make AZ more of a bonus point system and not a preference point system, but maybe that's just me! My math and logic could be wrong on that one.) ?Also, since non-residents are still (rightfully) limited to 10% of tags for any given hunt, this change would largely impact a fairly narrow band of resident applicants.? ( You just got done stating how the 10% non-res cap already prevents non-residents from getting more tags in your opening statement. So with the 10% cap in place, how does increasing the holdover hurt residents draw odds, unless some non-residents switch strategies and start applying for units where the cap isn't reached in the hold over process. If that happens then that leaves MORE tags available to draw in the more coveted areas!) ?Anyone complaining about draw odds should become familiar with the concept of supply and demand and align their draw strategy away from the trophy units if hunting more than once every decade or two is a priority for them.? (This would still be the case with the changes being recommended).

?4. 3 YEAR WAIT PERIOD ON PREMIUM ESTABLISHED HUNTS- I DISAGREE - It won't make much of a statistical difference for the hard to draw units and would seem downright punitive to those that apply for more middle of the road units (like me).? (I already explained first that it would make a significant enough difference if you look at each individual hunt and not as a whole. Second, what % is significant enough? I already touched on this also. Even 7-8 tags in a hunt not going to those who have drawn in under 3 years would be a significant difference especially those who will now get the tags who have invested more time and money to wait for the tag. It is obviously NOT a ?good gesture? for the whiners.) ?Like the 20% holdover, this would be more of a token gesture to the whiners that refuse to apply for units that have more reasonable draw odds and I believe would actually encourage more people to apply for the really hard to draw units (since people would shoot for the stars since they would have fewer opportunities in their lifetime to hunt). I think this would be a very bad plan for most of us in the long run.? (That is an unfounded and far reach to think that it would cause more people to ?reach for the stars? and make it harder to draw the more coveted tags. To the contrary, all of these changes would assure to lower the average amount of time it takes to draw a tag. ?Assure? is the key word. The changes take out SOME, not completely, of the ?luck? needed to draw a tag. For every lucky person out there, there are five unlucky people. This simply is not fair. How one can argue against this is mind boggling to me. How can lowering the AVERAGE amount of time it takes to not just draw a coveted tag but any tag, be bad for the Greater Good?)

?5. INSTITUTE PREMIUM DRAW HUNTS- I DISAGREE ? As others have said, the term premium is subjective. The line between a ?premium? and a ?standard? unit could be based on economic or special interests that are inconsistent with the goals of the average hunter. This could open the door for AZGFD to apply supply and demand pricing to other hunts. Since Arizona is often viewed as one of (possibly ?the?) best state for some species there could be some reasonable comparison between the cost of a regular draw ?premium? tag and an ?Indian reservation? tag. We all know that Indian reservation tags can cost $10,000 or more so going down this road is bad for the majority of us. After all, where do we draw the line on premium pricing? If the premium hunts are popular, the law of economics would suggest the price needs to go up.? ( Whoa, slow down partner, the Department wouldn't be able to just increase the price of the tags to the level of a Reservation tag. The ceiling on price of tags would be set through legislation. This is already the case. If the Department could just raise tag prices how they wanted then it makes no difference if there were premium hunts or not. Confused on that logic also.) ?It could also be used to steer demand from expensive ?premium? units to ?better value? units (like the ones I apply for).? (I think this comment sums up your concerns- any changes made may change the way YOU apply and thus negatively affect YOU. There is a common theme there and understandable but if you look at what is best for the ?greater good? the right thing. Also, if you CAREFULLY look at and consider these changes you will conclude that there won't be a large affect on the amount of time to draw these ?better value? units. Remember these changes will lower the average amount of time to draw a tag overall. In these units where the time to draw a tag is already lower it will stay relatively the same.) ?It would also present some logistical issues because it would require applicants to select EITHER ?trophy? or ?standard? when applying on an application since the pricing could vary based on the hunt.? ( They are not selecting anything other than just listing the hunt they want to put in for. With an online draw, which I already explained why it would be better, the price is attached to the hunt and so forth. This is how all other states are. Don?t know how that contributes to ?logistical issues?) ?Overall I think this would complicate what is already an already complicated draw process. The reality is that ?on-average? the time and cost required to acquire a premium tag is already higher than the cost to acquire a lesser tag (more years applying and more licenses purchased).? (Already explained how it's not complicated, unless someone doesn't have a computer. Also, you just stated on my point, these changes would reduce the ?time and cost required to acquire a premium tag?. Now going back to what I stated at the very beginning of my responses. We could overcome the initial and warranted dislike to raise prices and still establish a premium hunt system. You could increase the wait period or any wait at all on the premium hunts. For instance, if someone draws a tag for a coveted tag they will be subjected to the wait period. This could be a 5 year period, like Nevada, while the other units had a 3 year wait period. Or you could not have a wait period on the ?lesser? hunts but only a wait period on the ?premium hunts?. Before you dismiss this think about it. This would support your goal of making people really choose what hunt strategy they followed (be committed and prepared is how I think you referred to it). Now it matters not on the subjectivity of establishing these premium hunts. First, the premium status could be assigned based on prior draw statistics. That is not subjective rather objective in determining the demand for that hunt. Second, if people valued that hunt they would still choose to be subjected to the wait period as a consequence to drawing the tag. This should appeal to you, instituting this policy would increase your odds to draw that lesser tag because the people who drew a tag in a premium hunt the prior 3-5 years would not be competing with you for the lesser hunt. That happens a lot where after using up all their points the drawee then puts in for a lesser hunt the next year and ?bingo? draw again, of course ahead of someone like yourself who has been putting in for that hunt for 6+ years. I actually like this idea more than raising tag prices for the premium hunts. The raising of tag prices was brought up years ago along with the premium hunt suggestion in order to appease the Department for not raising the tags in a unit overall. That is all. Two separate issues. That was a management issue, not a draw issue.)
?I am sure most of your ideas are very popular among the TAG servicing companies (the more automated and credit card based the system the cheaper it is for them to process applications). An increase in the holdover percentage would also promote more non-resident interest in Arizona thereby increasing applications and volume for these companies. Giving back tags would also make it more convenient for casual hunters to pick a better time to hunt. These all seem like nice thingson the surface?unless you are a die-hard committed Arizona resident hunter like me. Sorry for the longwinded post, I am a rookie to this board.? (Ok, responding to these last comments doesn't even seem necessary but couldn't be left alone. Online apps with credit card would not make a difference among TAG companies if you charge the cards up front?issue solved. Increasing interest is of no concern to you as the Non-res cap would still apply and again should not concern the non-residents if the fees are still charged up front. I feel that all my answers to your concerns show how these changes would be for the benefit of ?The Greatest Good?. That includes those individuals who want the chance to draw on a frequent basis. These changes would reduce the amount of time it takes to draw a tag, coveted or not. My last comment of yours will be mine ?These all seem like nice things on the surface?unless you are a die-hard committed Arizona resident hunter like me!?
Cheers
bubbas
 
1) There simply is no reason in this day and age that the app system should not be online! (To those that argue that applying with a cc isn't right , what about getting a cash advance and writing the check?) It would eliminate mistakes, streamline the process for AZGFD, and make it more convenient for the rest of us.
2)There should be exigencies for turning in a tag w/out penalty. i.e. death in the family, illness, etc. For the rest why can't you turn in a tag, get your points back but not the money? That would eliminate casual tag shoppers and if the tag is going to be wasted anyway, someone who can/will use it should be able to. The entries are already in the computer, so the tag can easily be reassigned to the next in line.
3)The alternative extremes are a)go to preference points only(Colorado) or b)no points at all(New Mexico) neither state has a dearth of applicants willing to apply. 20% is a reasonable compromise if you don't like the alternatives. Personally I probably would not apply with NO chance at more than 20% of the tags.
4)No real opinion either way. If there is a wait, you should be able to apply for points only during the wait.
5)Not going to make a difference! I will apply based on population numbers and trophy potential(not always in that order) regardless of price unless you make it prohibitively expensive to apply for some units. Then you cater to the "rich mans game" that we all agree is wrong.
One other comment: When you suggest "trophy units" see Utah and all the comments elsewhere about their management.

That makes the post somewhat long winded but you asked for a considered response!
Ed
 
Haven't read everyone's responces, sorry if I repeat.

1. Online apps would be fine, but no, pay only if you are drawn. I don't think the G&F are willing to find a solution to this, even though there has to be one in this day and age. Otherwise leave it like it is. This country is dieing because of credit issues, time to toe the line in all aspects of life.
Also you may have no mistakes on the apps, which are rejected before the draw and therefore no tag assigned, a bigger problem is if they haven't paid first and then don't have the balance on their card after receiving a tag it's squews the whole process. You were next in line to get that unit 9 tag, instead you drew a 6A tag on your second choice. When nimrod didn't have the funds for a unit 9 tag and you would have got that. Are they going to go back and figure out you get the better tag and then who would get your tag and then who would get their tag and then.......I imagine this is the main problem that they found with the online process and not collecting money.

2.Same problem with turning in tags. Who would get it, how would it affect the tag they drew on their second choice, or that they have already applied to Colorado and paid 500.00 bucks for a tag and drew and now are told they can have an Az tag and can't afford to go on 2 hunts and now they're upset and going to sue the state for the Colo tag money and then......

Any of the next ones would have to include all bull hunts and buck hunts. What would be the deciding factor, any unit that has bulls, mulies, coues could produce trophy animals at any time, who's to decide, there's no one to trust to do the picking correctly, it'll just magically be right?

3. Not sure but with a top 50% it would seem to make every bull hunt in the state a PP system for NRs, I don't see any of the up to 10% tags getting out of the first draw to the second level. As a resident it may help me at least in the first shuffle but I'm not sure about the numbers after.

4.Wait period would have to help more than the g&f say, I think. Again I'm just thinking off the top of my head but here goes. 80,000 apps, 75,000 probably had at least one bull choice on it. So with some apps 2 bull choices and some 1 bull and 1 cow, maybe 130,000 first and second choices for bull. Something like 12,500 bull tags given. The first year there will be something like 20,000 less 1st & 2nd choices for bull, the second year there will be like 40,000 less choices for bull tags and continue that trend forward. Maybe won't help a whole lot in the sought after units but would have to help some, definatly would make it easier to draw in the less sought after hunts, every 3,4,5 years ect. I'm not really in favor of this for no other reason than it doesn't feel right to me, I could be wrong.

5. Having a different price system on some preceived quality, decided by some agency, is a class system. If one person is not able to apply for a tag he really wants because it's a higher price than he can afford and he has to settle for a lesser choice, that's BS.

As a forth generation Arizonan, I'd like to think we keep the playing field as level as possible, especially price wise. I don't have the true answers and some form of these changes may work but I see too many issues the way they are stated here.

The only way we can make changes is to brainstorm until something seems right or is left in the dust. Good subject.

Kent
 
I'd like to through this into the mix.

If, for any reason a person can't use their big game tag, they can always donate to the Arizona HUNT OF A LIFETIME and we'll do our very best to make sure that a young person with a serious or life threatening situation gets to use it.

So far HOAL has used donated tags for deer, antelope, elk and even bighorn sheep.

Thanks to all who have donated tags in the past, and to all those guides who have donated their time and experience to make these hunts truly a once-in-a-lifetime experience for the kids.

Don Martin
Outfitter/Guide Coordinator
AZ Hunt of A Lifetime
 
KRP and to all who are jumping in new to this thread,

Please, read post #39. I have provided answers to the concerns that have been brought up regarding the proposed changes. It is long but it includes the objections to the changes and then my answers trying to clarify what I feel is false perception.

Don,
I was going to mention HOAL. Thank you for your involvement with this worthy cause. However, I must say that I do not feel that philanthropy should be coerced. Philanthropy should be given autonomously. Right now that is not totally the case.
 
bubbas, first these are excellent topics and thank you for putting such passion in your thoughts. Just because I see things at a different angle doesn't mean I disagree that something could be done someway for each of these issues. I could live with your proposals and think they have merit, except for one(Premium Hunt Structure). But also see the legal and logistical issue that would arise and must be answered before a solution is accepted.

I need to respond to each one by itself.

Online draw. I want it, but in Az they can't require funds from CC's before a tag is issued, we have different state laws than others. So now you're trying to fix a problem that has to do with personal responsibility that only hurts themselves to a personal responsability problem that effects everyone in line in the draw below them. I would like to see the percentage of those not having funds for tags drawn, I would think it would be simular to those making mistakes on their apps. How are we going to save them from themselves and worse is, everyone below them that were screwed.

What if I got my second choice 4A tag intead of my 3C tag I wanted and I was next in line. Hows the G&F going to figure all the ramifications on that one tag and Xs that by 2000 tags.

Maybe I drew a cow tag on my second choice and would have had a coveted bull tag.

Maybe my kid would have recieved that 23 cow tag by the cabin we really wanted instead of that limited op tag on the other side of the state we put him in for just so he could hunt.

Who's going to fix this.

At least if someone screws up an app they only screw themselves. once the draw is over, tags are sent out and that's it, no more redoing things.

I truly believe without evidence, that this is why G&F are reluctant to go back to the online/CC foremat, could you imagine the nightmare trying to figure it out after the draw.

My wife was a recipient of a tag that someone hadn't paid for on a limited op hunt, after she wasn't drawn. So we benifited. I also knew 2 people that weren't concerned about having the money available because they only drew cow tags. To some, cow tags are a important as bull to us and that's all they put in for, why screw them.

We need an online draw but also financial responsability at the time of application, not after the draw is done.

Kent
 
"I could live with your proposals and think they have merit, except for one(Premium Hunt Structure)."

(Kent, what about only instituting a Premium hunt structure where a higher fee is not instituted but instead a wait period being levied upon drawing? Would you be OK with it then? and if not, why? If you were OK with a wait period then this may be a fair way..


As far as requiring the fees up front on a credit card not being legal in Arizona, I will have to do some research on that. I apologize if this the case because then I recognize your point on some sticky points during times where there are insufficient funds. There could probably be some solutions there. Although the greatest solution would be to charge fees up front on CC so I would like to find the correct answer on this first and foremost. Thanks
 
I absolutely would be fine with both those solutions, I'm sorry, if you proposed the no higher fee in post 39, I was going one at a time so I could concentrate on one issue at a time, haven't got down that far yet in that post.

The legal issue of CCs were discussed in depth a few years ago but definately time to revisit it. It came down to Az has a law that protects consumers from having their CC charged without a product supplied, something like that. It's a state legislature law and would have to be changed there, probably not possible just for some hunters.

G&F might be able to get a ruling but I think they were fairly gun shy after the USO lawsuits and doesn't want to take the chance 80,000 applicants will sue them for an elk tag they paid for but never recieved, even though they weren't drawn. This law only applies to CCs, not cash or debit cards.

I'm going on memory for this but it was a big roadblock that I don't think is any different.

Kent
 
Another long one - I will wait for the hard drive space bill from the Monster Muley administrators :)

Don +1 on HOAL ? I cannot think of a more valuable thing to do with a tag than give it to a kid with a life threatening disease. I wouldn't be opposed to all tags being put into this pool (but realize there are limits to the number of kids the program can support). As for Bubbas coercion comment, I find it ludicrous and consistent with many of his other opinions targeted at making the lives of those who can afford to apply in several states even easier. These privileged hunters obviously deserve to keep their bonus points in the off chance they cannot work the hunt into their already extensive hunt schedules. Why don't we all lobby for game and fish to offer ?tie a bull to a tree hunts? so all the busy Bone Collectors can schedule their kills on their I-phones.

Kent/Boskee and several others ? You all make some great points; I think we are drinking the same Kool-Aid.

Although I share Bubbas conviction, he and I are on opposite ends of the spectrum when it comes to the issues. I think there is value to continuing this discussion and I am encouraged that other people agree with some of my points. I am going to try to keep this response more concise by referencing some of the demographic definitions I described in my last post (post 36). I have also included a few bonus definitions (see below). These were pulled directly from businessdictionary.com.

DEFINITION OF COST - Actual sacrifice involved in performing an activity, or following a decision or course of action. It may be expressed as the total of opportunity cost (cost of employing resources in one activity than the other) and accounting costs (the cash outlays).

DEFINTION OF PRICE - Market value, or agreed exchange value, that will purchase a definite quantity, weight, or other measure of a good or service. As the consideration given in exchange for transfer of ownership, price forms the essential basis of commercial transactions. It may be fixed by a contract (such as sale of goods contract), left to be determined by an agreed upon formula at a future date, or discovered or negotiated during the course of dealings between the parties involved. In commerce, it boils down to what (1) a buyer is willing to pay, (2) a seller is willing to accept, and (3) the competition is allowing to be charged.

I believe the current Arizona Game and Fish drawing process is a fairly free market system (with the exception of the holdover tags). Applicants can choose to evaluate the COST associated with each hunt (costs include not only dollars but the opportunity cost of the TIME it takes to draw a tag) against their perceived value of the PRODUCT (the tag). Applicants can also choose to shop (or in this case apply) without considering the cost, but the availability of products and the cost paid for those products can be influenced significantly by how prepared the ?buyer? is when he enters the market. Some buyers will pay more and some will pay less, some will stumble into a sale, either way we rarely criticize someone when they are either lucky or better prepared and pay less than we did. Increasing holdover % and instituting wait periods across the board would essentially be applying external market forces that would arbitrarily shift the demand curve based on some arbitrary definition of what constitutes a premium tag or some arbitrary metric used as a premium hunt indicator (like saying any bull unit with draw odds of 20% or less is now considered a premium unit). You can claim that using some data value as a ?premium? indicator is totally fair however as I said before, all of these lines in the sand are ultimately implemented after some degree of subjective review. These subjective decisions are often reverse engineered with agencies deciding the number first and then trying to find support for their decision later (like the 20 percent rule for archery deer hunts). My point to this whole thing is that we have a choice, we can let hunters determine the cost of tags or we can let politicians and government agencies have full control of these decisions (by allowing more of this pandering to different demographic groups). I don't trust politicians very much (too many Bone Collectors lobbying them) so I would rather leave them out of the equation all together by limiting their opportunities to artificially shift the demand curves and reallocate the pie. Leave the draw as it is and if people want to pay a lower cost (dollars+time) they can apply for a different unit. This isn't a ?cop out?, this is reality.

My main issue with Bubbas comments is that he presents them as being for the ?greater good? and in ?fairness? however the real beneficiaries will be a narrow segment of resident bone collectors (probably like himself). I make no apology for supporting the interests of the ?greater majority (the residents that apply for the less sexy tags)?. The reason I feel strongly enough to respond point by point is because Bubbas proposals seem like minor convenience issues on the surface but have bigger and longer lasting impacts for others like myself. I think it is important to point out these risks to the Freewheelers that would be inclined to support this without considering the bigger long-term ramifications. At the end if the day it is all about people trying to get the best product (or tag) for the lowest possible ?cost?. The Bone Collectors that apply for sexy units have a significant investment in the process and will continue to apply even if tag prices are significantly increased (even at two or three times they would still be a relative bargain). The real equalizer that levels the playing field is TIME.

Here are some quick point by point responses to Bubbas post (#39).

1. Online Draw process ? STILL DISAGREE ? I have had two applications rejected in my life. The first was in my teens (my mom forgot to put my SSN on the app). After that I started handling the application process for my family (Dad/uncles/brothers/friends). The second happened last year, my father in law gave me the hunting license number from a previous year (the first and last time he joins my deer application). It looked funny but I submitted the application anyway. The net effect was that my wife, father-in-law and I all forfeited our $7.50 (totaling 22.50) and I lost my loyalty point. None of us got a bonus point that year either. I had about four points that year so this little mistake really cost me. In hindsight it was still my mistake and I hold no ill will for it. Even if the application process were online there are limits to the data validation and business logic that can be applied to each field. Bottom line, take responsibility and double and triple check your apps. As for credit cards, the issue is about people borrowing to finance their hunting applications. Whether the charge happens at the beginning or the end the application is still being submitted on borrowed money. Allowing people to finance hunts will increase applicants and reduce opportunity for all of us.

2. TURNING TAGS BACK IN ? INDIFFERENT ? You addressed most of my objections. My real concern is the time and dollars required to make this happen. I would rather build a new water cachement in Ajo. Kent made some good points about other complications that I also agree with.

3. INCREASE HOLD OVER PERCENTAGE ? STRONGLY DISAGREE? I want nothing to do with anything resembling a preference point system. Your comment about 50% holdover being a nice compromise would suggest a preference system and pure draw system are equally viable solutions. The current 20% holdover is kind of a promise to many people that have spent considerable time and money bolstering their bonus point positions (hunter education courses in Kingman for instance). I don't like any holdover but I think the current 20% program is a promise Game and Fish needs to keep. I would strongly fight any attempt to increase even to 21%.

4. 3 YEAR WAIT PERIOD ? STILL STRONGLY DISAGREE ? See my earlier comments about arbitrarily impacting demand curves. This suggestion squarely steps on toes of me and people like me (Researchers/meat hunters/cow kids). I won't belabor this point but simply call out the varying priorities of the various demographics. You may be inclined say it would only apply to ?premium hunts?. I cover that issue in the next bullet.

5. PREMIUM HUNTS ? STILL STRONGLY DISAGREE ? This is simply a way for special interests to move the demand curve around. Many Bone Collectors would ?settle? for standard units thereby reducing opportunity for my fellow Researchers. You balked at my assertion about tag prices for premium tags going through the roof. I think you said legislation would control the amount of the increases. Since most legislation is based on some foundation of fact I think there would be all kinds of room for some crazy tag prices. As I said earlier, let the market determine the cost of a premium hunt. Premium hunts SHOULD cost more (even if the only higher cost is more TIME).

I think we should focus on other things rather than focus on sweeping changes that benefit a narrow segment of the hunting pool. Our future challenge is to keep as much of the current pie available as possible. We have squirrel and jaguar groups that would love to shut us out of some great hunting areas. We also have private land issues that others have been working on for a long time (Don Martin comes to mind again). Here are some things that I believe truly support the ?greater good?.

?Mandatory harvest reporting - This would be fairly easy thing to implement and Game and Fish already has most of the applicant data needed to make this happen. I think it could be cost effectively implemented as part of the current phone system or via a web interface. Anyone that fails to report is systematically excluded from the next years draw. This would allow Game and Fish to make better data driven decisions.

?Bonus Points for Volunteers Program ? In a world where government agencies are feeling the pinch, a well thought out program like this could be a big win-win. I say well thought out because this is another corruption prone area. Volunteer activities would need to comparable in nature and access to them would have to be equitably planned for. I am more than wliing to sit on committees with anyone else that wishes to explore this.

?Take a Kid Hunting Program ? There are currently private programs like this in place but I think there would be some value in an agency sponsored program since it would allow better centralized planning and tracking of program impacts. I love the idea of over the counter spring turkey permits. If there is already something like this in place I stand corrected.

Cheers,
Ryan
 
I'll start by saying that I currently am a: Bone Collector, Researcher, and Meat Hunter all in one! That's why AZ has such great opportunity, so it depends on the species each year. Some years I'm a bone collector for deer, elk, bear or turkey, and a researcher or meat hunter for the others!

Second, we can all tell that Bubbas is a good debater. My point is that we don't need any type of proof of the "greater good" or point for disagreement, but we can disagree just because we're not convinced. Most disagree for selfish or personal reasons, I know, so for that purpose alone it is hard to accept, but I hear time and time again that hunters want an equal and likely chance at a tag each and every year. Most of these type of hunters do not visit forums, many are weekend warriors, many apply the last day or week of the drawing, and most probably don't care about the "greater good". Their opinion and money is worth just as much as ours, they don't want it, they outnumber us dedicated hunters, and that is the hard part to argue and accept, at least for me. This is why all of my friends' ideas have been shot down at every meeting, and this is the response I heard time and time again, and what I believe is your primary obstacle.



1. ONLINE DRAW PROCESS - I have also heard that CC's cannot be charged the full amount up front in AZ. I am 100% for charging the full amount, so this is a must in my opinion to rule out those who like to play, but not pay. Also, I have not heard anyone address the charges the department pays for accepting credit cards! This is significant, so they must also pay an online convenience fee, similar to Nevada to recover this additional cost. Therefore, I am all for an online system, as long as 100% fee upfront, with online additional convenience fee charges. Make this happen, and I have no argument, although selfishly I like the paper application process, because I don't wait to the last minute and don't make mistakes on my applications!

2. TURNING TAG BACK IN - I hate the idea of this, but I would be for it with A LOT OF REGULATION. I hate additional rules and regulations, but I feel this is a point for corruption and must be added if we allow people to turn tags back in. However, I'm against any point reinstating, unless military, death, or serious injury. I don't care if things come up, money is tight, work is heavy, you can't find that trophy animal you've waited 20 years to draw the tag for! I hate the greedy idea of other states allowing simple returns on tags, and reinstating points. Its BS to me, and I'm against it unless the rules are crystal clear.

3. INCREASE HOLD OVER PERCENTAGE - Absolutely not. This will only help residents, and is not fair for the "greater good" in my opinion. This will distance the max bonus point pool for residents vs. nonresidents, create more problems for the max bonus point pool pass, and make it more difficult for NRs to draw tags out of the 10% Bonus pass. This is unfair in my opinion, because you are effectively giving 30% more tags by "preference" to AZ residents in the highest bonus point pool, and taking from the whole of the lower bonus point allocation. I like the fair and unbias distribution in the 80% pool for everyone equally, aside bonus point advantage.

4. 3 YEAR WAIT PERIOD ON PREMIUM ESTABLISHED HUNTS - Absolutely not. First it will be 3, then 5, then 10. My point is that where do we stop? Also, the question of premium has come up and is very difficult and subjective to quantify. I personally feel that most archery elk hunts seem premium, but I would argue that really only a few units are premium. I don't care what the statistics say, many units are not premium in New Mexico, and are being sold at premium prices. This will most likely happen in AZ as well in time. My fear would be that many non-premium hunts would be pushed to premium allocation, simply by defining certain ones in the first place. Successive units may be quantified as premium in time, simply by the fact that people would still want to hunt and apply for lesser units. Also, I believe it is not fair in my opinion to punish another for his fortunate luck in drawing a tag, despite the unit or hunt. I don't care if it seems more fair for everyone else, or allows 7-8 hunters who have waited longer. I like that fact that everyone has a chance, no matter how small. I personally like Nevada's squared bonus point system, but that is beside the point.

5. INSTITUTE PREMIUM DRAW HUNTS - Against it. Again, simply by defining premium hunts you create a mind set or definition, and other hunts follow. First it will by north of the canyon, then it will follow into the desert late hunts or whitetail hunts, and finally on to lesser unit archery bull hunts. Second, I don't believe in higher cost to harvest or hunt an animal, unless you can show me the management side of things, which I'm not completely convinced of with the current system. Your principle is good, but our flawed system of implementing a higher price to pay for increased trophy management or heard numbers has not yet worked in AZ once that I can think of. It sounds great, and I want the end result, but I don't like what it may lead to by definition, and secondly I don't trust the tag #'s and management to support it. Show me the management cost, wildlife opportunity and objectives, and then I may support it, but not just because someone is telling me that they are supposedly selling less tags at a higher price.

In closing, I haven't heard enough mention of wildlife management. We briefly touched on it, but it seems like the issue here is "greater good" for humans, not wildlife. Meanwhile, we should be arguing for better surveys, securing access to public lands, mandatory harvest reporting, or more accurate or scientific management. Instead, we want to fill the Comission's ear with what we want for us, not with what's best for our wildlife, when I feel this is far more important in the overall view of things. The problem is that lately, the G&F seems to be more of a wildlife book keeper, with spreadsheets and projections, numbers and cost financing. And they need to because of money, I know, but they aren't convincing me of their intentions when a unit manager specifically tells me that his objective was increased beyond his control due to the Comission overriding his recommendation. We should all be writing them letters and knocking on their door because of this alone, and worring about drawing our tags second!
 
Javi,
Thx for your comments. I cannot go in into anymore detail as to how the changes would decrease the amount of time it would take to draw a tag for EVERYONE involved in draw process. In your posts you actually do not state anything refuting this. You only keep referring to your "own" philosophy and how you want to do everything you can to protect your situation. That is fine. Self preservation is a right afforded to you. I am typically conservative in nature as to political strategies but in this case I feel that with the limited resources (animals and thus tags) a situation of supply not equaling demand has occurred which everyone recognizes. I see that the fundamental difference for you and I is that where you would like as little restriction or regulation as possible and let luck being the determining factor to sort the issue out, I on the other hand would like regulations in place to assure as even a distribution of the resource as possible. This is especially the case when the government REQUIRES an investment of money (and everyone's financial investment is the same regardless of social class). I do not feel comfortable with "luck" determining who gets the tags when the system REQUIRES the investment.

If you really like the old system, then you should be adamant about the Department doing away with mandatory license purchase to apply. This is not fair unless you have a way to assure a fair distribution of tags. That is why I feel a 50% bonus point and 50% preference point system is fair WHEN MANDATORY FEES ARE IN PLACE. If you do away with that then just have bonus points and no hold over. Honestly, I liken it to how I have to pay the maximum amount of taxes to a system that I have no "real" control how it is spent, I have to assume politicians are not corrupt in their distributions of my taxes (hold your breath), then I get screwed because when the government institutes a policy to help others (Stimulus Plan) it will never get around to those that invest the most. In both our minds we want what is fair but we differ on how to achieve that. Again ultimately you feel what is fair is the least amount of regulation and let luck run it's course. I am normally like this to, such as in politics. However, in this case hard work and sacrifice does not lead to reward. Instead we have a limited source that we all are equally entitled to and all invest equal amount of money and we can't work harder to improve our use of the resource but rather rely on unfair luck. I will never see how that is right!
 
Ryan, read your hunter descriptions, good stuff. I'm guilty of being a 'Researcher'. The hardest part is writing a choice down, analizing a bunch of units will do that to ya.

Ok turning tags back in. #2

There's alot bigger issues to deal with than this but since it was brought up. I guess there could be a system that will use a tag if it couldn't be used, for whatever reason. If there are more than the HOAL young people can use then there could be a program for those that may not be young but may have only one more opportunity to hunt in their lifetime. If there are any left after that, there could be a youth only draw right before the hunt. Or youths could already have applied in a program like the managment hunts and be selected that way. No way could they go back into the general pool. That would cause the same nightmare as unfunded tags coming back. People already with other tags, plans and money spent on out of state tags. At least it would be a donation and no one has a right to complain.

No reinstatement of BPs, use it, eat it or donate it.

For some reason many people believe we should be insured/assured in all aspects of our life. If for some reason things go wrong we should have a redo, life's harder than that, ask some of the young people Mr. Martin involves himself with. Their's should be guaranteed tags.

There have been times when life has got'n in the way of a tag, so be it.

Kent
 
Well, I did not intend this post to be a debate but rather a post to both gauge possible interest as to whether changes needed to be made to the Az draw and if so, how they should be done. The motivation to this interest is not only my own, but many others within the circle of those I interact with (all social classes) whom feel changes need to be made to better serve more people in a more accurate, fair manner. Where these proposed changes may not be perfect and could use some refinement (such as not instituting higher fees but rather imposing a wait period for "premium hunts") I believe it could be done if warranted.

I do feel, like Jason, stated that opposition to these changes are mostly based on selfish motivations (given right) and ultimately short sighted. All of the opposition I have read, and read carefully are philosophical in nature in that exact reasons not stated or they have already been answered but glazed over by an inherent prejudice to change. I learned along time ago that if someone does not want change, all the logic or well founded reasons in the world will not convince them of change....and hence the dilemma we find ourselves in.

I have written a lot in my posts covering most of these concerns. A lot of subsequent responses seem like they were not read. Don't feel like repeating them. It does seem like a lot of the responses in opposition show a lack of understanding such as this comment in response to a return tag policy.

"No reinstatement of BPs, use it, eat it or donate it.
For some reason many people believe we should be insured/assured in all aspects of our life. If for some reason things go wrong we should have a redo, life's harder than that, ask some of the young people Mr. Martin involves himself with. Their's should be guaranteed tags."

There has for some reason been an over generalization that those who would be turning back in tags would be some big executive who just haphazardly put in for the draw and then because he drew so many other tags in other states, or buys so many tags in other states, or has a big trip scheduled to Europe that all of a sudden he doesn't want to hunt Arizona, the state he has been trying to draw in for so long and will turn it in. Wow, this feeling is so obviously biased and generalized. Do you know how many legitimate reasons there are out there that come up to not be able to use a tag, even when they may have waited so long to get it. But just for arguments sake EVERYONE who turned tags back in (not realistic) was some executive who was just picking and choosing what hunt to go on. Who cares! who does it hurt? The tag will go to an alternate who was already determined in the regular draw. If that alternate doesn't want it, ask the next alternate. How many alternates do you think would pass the tag up. The tag then goes from one who CAN'T use or doesn't want the tag to someone who does want it. Who is loosing here? Do you guys just want to punish that evil executive hunter image you have in your head? They won't even be the majority of people who turn it back in. I mean seriously, you have to put in so early for the hunts relative to when it is... just like you said "life happens". Under your reasoning....To hell with everyone. Who cares if we could actually give the tag to someone who can use it...DAMN THEM ALL, those evil applicants....how dare they put in for a tag that they can't use....and how dare they not use it and then want a way where they could save their points. They should have known before they started investing all this money the government requires to apply that the year they finally do apply and draw they can't or don't want to use the tag. That is just life...the risks you take. Wow, with some of your guy's logic I am suprised you even feel at all for the less fortunate. I mean really, that's just life. Crap happens. Doesn't matter if things could have been changed to a broken system to actually change their circumstances. You know why the system didn't change...because of close minded thinkers who refuse to make it.

Honestly, lets just keep the system the way it is. Who cares. I don't have anymore time or energy to try and improve something that is impossible to improve. Also, the "GAWD, I Hate Arizona" thread, I explained that the "greater good" comprised of the majority opinion (humans) and the Welfare of the Wildlife (animals). What the humans want should not be to the detriment of the welfare of wildlife (management). You are right, this should be discussed and improved.......Good luck with that LOL.
 
LAST EDITED ON Apr-20-09 AT 09:30AM (MST)[p]I can understand your frustration, you must have thick skin putting your thoughts out to the public. They will be grabbed, twisted, held up in glory and spit on. Not everyone's going to agree 100% with anyone, relax.

Ok, I guess the tag return is really a BP reinstatement issue and not so much about someone else using the tag. I guess my ideas about using them for a greater good weren't so hot, I can live with that.

Fairness, fairness for who? Not for Joe that wanted that tag but drew 2nd thru 5th choices, he won't be considered as an alternate. There was always someone down the line that wanted Joe's tag, where's their fairness.

The most abuse of this type of situation would be with cow tags and just because they are not that important to me, there are plenty of people that only want cow tags. So to try and have a system that may help a handful of those with high BPs, you're causing unnessesary unfairness to many others. You cannot put these tags back in the general pool.

Since my idea of giving them to HOAL without recieving anything in return isn't so hot. That makes me rethink it. Ok, how about reinstateing BPs if your tag is accepted by HOAL. If HOAL can't use it you can donate it to a youth pool out of the goodness of you heart.

Realworld, this is a nonissue, but fun for us to discuss, don't take it so serious. Why do I say this? I have seen many tags go unused, of all the ones that I've tried to convince to donate the last few years, since I've known of the existance of HOAL, 0 have been donated, even some good bull tags. Their apathy for using the tag also relates to their apathy of finding someone to use it, even though it is easy. Every year I know of a couple tags that go unhunted, it's frustrating but part of the real world.

Life is tough, there's no guarantees. We can't legislate to the inth degree our happiness in life. Some issues are bigger than others and worth consideration. This isn't one of them.

Kent
 
Was in a hurry earlier.

My 'life is tough statement' wasn't to be harsh or unsympathetic, just realistic. Making an honest mistake on an app and losing 2 BPs is unfortunate and I do feel for anyone that did it. Putting the wrong hunt # down, drawing a hunt you didn't want and losing all your BPs are also unfortunate. But the only fair way to fix it would be to go back in time and correct it before the draw, so it didn't affect one other person with their choices. Well, all things unfortunate in life would be fixed the same way. If I had that power I would fix auto accidents, medical problems, physical/mental abuses, BPs are last on the list but I still feel bad for them.

I read the other tread but didn't see exactly what he did to mess up. So I'm having to guess.

Put a 2 infront of an elk number instead of a 3 because antelope starts with 2 and that's what I just got done doing and messed up. I missed the grace period but G&F should have known what I wanted. Or a hunt unit instead of a # or nothing at all.

Now I'm a G&F person trying to figure what you wanted to do. Did you only put a 2 infront of elk # like 2001 instead of 3001.
Did you actually use an antelope # and if I just add a 3 infront that would put you in for something totally different.
Did you only mess up the first # or the second also, if I change the 2 to a 3 you will be drawn for a cow hunt and with your 7 bps that doesn't seem right.
You put a hunt unit down instead of a #, let's see, there are 3 cow hunts, 2 rifle bull hunts, 2 archery bull hunts, some L.O. hunts in part of the unit. You have 7 bps, not a cow or l.o. hunt, not a nov archery bull. Must be an early rifle, early archery, or late rifle. eeny, meeny, miney, moe and there you go, I fixed it. Now we would be hearing how G&F just screwed them out of all their bps instead of just 2 by giving them a hunt they didn't want and poor Joe again got screwed because he was next in line for that tag and didn't mess up and on down the line.

I wouldn't have a problem with them continuing the loyalty point for at least putting in an app on time, mistakes aside, That seems fair.

There are already safe guards to protect yourself, if you don't wish to use them I will feel for you, but not punish others because of your mistake.

Kent
 
To all the replies saying you cannot do an online draw because you can't charge credit cards, what about electronic checks. I have several transactions I make where I simply enter RTN and Checking account number and away it goes. This would seem to fall under the same rules as writing a check and it may limit the number of people applying at $10 for a free shot (Utah) at a great NR tag since you have to have the money in your account in order to submit the e-check.

There are several companies that will do the processing for a small convenience fee that is a separate transaction and paid by the applicant.
 
Pruney, These things were brought up in the past and should definatly be brought up again. Quite a few felt, just Debit cards, that's not breaking a law. Those not wanting to go that route could send them in, it was that way with the online/CC system they had, some still sent them in. Seems G&F didn't want to go that direction, maybe they had a good reason.

Their inability to respond in a meaningful manner to hunters concerns or questions is the most frustrating aspect of dealing with the G&F. You'll never get a straight answer from them.

Kent
 
i am highly in favor of the three year rule. i would feel alot better knowing i could go every 5 years or so versus the 11-13 years i have had to wait, imagine that i could have had 2 or 3 tags versus the 1 i actually had 3 years ago......cbryant
 
Regarding charging credit cards at time of application, I still have not had the time to research the veracity of those claiming it is unlawful in Arizona. My first suspicion is that there is not truly a strict law stating this but rather an interpretation by the Department and they just want to take the less risky route. I say this because retailers charge cards sometimes when an item is on back order and it can take months to receive the product. Sometimes the customer is tired of waiting and then the merchant must refund the money. As I am not a businessman, can someone please clarify for me how this is different?

Pruney,
You offer up a great solution but it sounds like too reasonable of a solution so I am sure many will oppose. I mean electronic checks and all....that sounds just too fancy dancy. What happened to just the good ol' shake of the hand and check writin'? More importantly, many on here will oppose it because it eliminates the need to actually get a paper application, write out a check and mail an application off in time to meet the deadline. It also would also help eliminate most application errors. This would hurt the draw odds for many people on this site....a no,no. They count on these mistakes. Remember, rejections = good.

Kent,
I believe you when you say you feel for them but life can't be 100% fair and sometimes some have to go through difficulties just as the happenings of life. I understand and anyone who is responsible for their own life has learned this by now. That does not mean we should not try to improve a system when a system CAN be improved in order to minimize hardship or maximize fairness...that is my belief. I believe that while yes this is a relatively mundane topic compared to many other national problems but hunting is a big part of all our lives, evidence by us being on these stupid chat rooms LOL. So if we can make changes that will add value to our life, I feel it's worth discussing. But only if change is willing and able. Honestly, I don't think that the hunting community as a whole is made up of enough open thinkers to allow for change of this magnitude, VALID OR NOT. Thus this discussion really just boils down to entertainment. Man, I must be a masochist! Notice, I said maximize fairness as I recognize that there is never a perfect system.

So, in response to the tag return policy. I will try to answer your concern with a direct solution to a concern rather than a philosophical rant that doesn't truly address it. Yes, it is true that under my proposed tag return policy your concern is valid but lets look at the scenario closer and compare what would happen with a tag return vs. what is currently in place (no tag return).

This is what I understand your concern to be. Currently, a draw takes place and all the tags are assigned. Person "A" received one of their first or second choice tags. Person "B" missed out receiving his first or second choice due to person "A" drawing the tag in front of him and the hunt quota was filled. Then Person "B" proceeded to draw their 3rd, 4th, or 5th choice in the second draw. So far so good?

Now, lets institute a tag return policy under this scenario. Person "A" decides that they CANNOT or even CHOOSE not to use their drawn tag and turns the tag back in. Your concern is that Person "B" would have drawn their first or second choice tag had Person "A" not drawn the tag and now Person "B" is being wronged by Person "A" turning the tag back in. Your concern is valid on the surface until broken down further. Let me explain. You assume the disservice to Person "B" is done when Person "A" turns the tag back in. This is 100% not so. Remember, Person "A" draws the tag under any scenario, more importantly under the system now, REGARDLESS if Person "B" puts in 3rd, 4th, or 5th choices. Even if there was NOT a return policy, Person "B" would NEVER see that tag. Instead, Person "A" is forced to use the tag, let the tag go to waste, sign tag to kin, or donate to HOAL. So your concern of an unfairness created by the "tag return policy", as you have expressed, is NOT VALID. In fact, one could argue that if Person "B" decides not to put a 3rd, 4th, or 5th choice then they can actually only be benefited from the tag return policy because they would have gotten the tag being the next alternate on the list. So when researched further the policy is actually opposite than what you first thought. If person "B" decides to put 3rd,4th,5th choices than his priority is increasing his hunting opportunities which is great but it has nothing to do with whether or not a "return tag policy" is fair to him or not. Is that clear? Do you see any err in the rational? If so, please let me know.

The only argument I see against it from the "nay" sayers is that they worry about people abusing the draw process by just putting in whether they think they can go or not, and then decide later if they draw. They worry about this doing harm to others or they think that by the way it is now it forces people to decide if they can go or not and that currently people just don't put in if they feel they can't use the tag. This is a VERY weak argument at best and completely false at worst. If people know 100% going into the draw that they won't be able to use the tag if drawn then what benefit do they have by putting in for the tag? None, they put in for the bonus point. If they aren't sure, maybe they put in for BP or maybe they put in for a tag. Either way they are not going to just not put in. So your own personal draw odds are not affected either way. If you look at the scenarios with a realistic, logical point of view as I have shown and not a philosophical opposition to change, you will see that this change would heavily weigh towards helping people not hurt people. It NOT ONLY helps those who have invested so much to participate in the application process but ALSO actually benefits everyone else in the draw because tags will no longer go to waste, or at least not near as many. What does that equate to....more people hunting more frequently when otherwise not able to. Seems like a no brainer to me...but hey sometimes it's better to be the same and less efficient I guess!

Just like the elk hunter that doesn't want to leave his water tank ground blind even when the elk won't come to water in shooting light and the elk are rutting like crazy, so he waits at a tank all day every day to kill an elk.....some times it happens, sometimes it doesn't. Wouldn't it be nice to have all strategies in your arsenal to increase success? (please, no one show your ignorance by actually trying to support your position based on that analogy and come up with all sorts of circumstances of hunting without actual reference to the actual discussion, expecting that to be suffice.....it was just an analogy not an argument for one style of hunting over another. Yes I know sometimes sitting a tank is the best way to kill an animal but just because it works sometimes or has worked in the past real well for some does not mean it is the best method and the only method to use. Sorry I had to put in that disclaimer because as I wrote that analogy I had all kinds of memories of past MM posts.)

Wow I have wasted a lot of time on this.
 
Oh, they had good reason........for them. They will not give anyone a straight answer because of two reasons...and two reasons only, Ineptitude and Hidden Personal Agendas...the end!
 
I would like to see a system of turning the tags back for use, but not with a possible leap frog by using the original draw. I think there could be a hunter pool app like the managment hunts, all those not drawn, wanting to participate, would have a chance at a random tag. I would still like to see HOAL have first pick though.

bubbas, you've done an outstanding job explaining yourself and I know you are frustrated with G&F not at least looking to make some changes for the better. I am also.

It does seem a waste of time but at least we are talking of the future of hunting and not sitting staring at the boob tube, that's a waste of time.

Kent
 
KRP,
I have much respect for you. Thank you for your concern also. The only reason why I take the time to go in to any amount of excruciating detail is because discussion based on illogical beliefs and not facts does no one any service, unless the discovery of truth and what is best for "the greater good" is not the real intent. I do not proclaim to have all the answers but I do proclaim to desire the truth, desire what is best for "the greater good, desire to maximize fairness when possible, and then go through a LOGICAL thought process to try and accomplish these goals. We could have a much better system and more happy people, whether those very people actually realize it or not, if more people would do the same.
 
bubbas, I am feeling more hopeful with Jack Husted now on the commission. I wish I could have went to saturday's meeting just to see if he was going to jump right in and what he might say. I don't know anyone that went, so have no idea.

Changing the commission has to be the first step before our words will ever be considered, maybe Jack Husted is the first footprint.

Kent
 
Oh Kent,
I was gonna mention I think that it would be a great idea to set aside a SMALL portion of tags to HOAL. This would be a great benefit. However, by philosophy I do not believe in coercive philanthropy. It negates the whole principle of philanthropy. I feel that the tag returner should be able to indicate whether they wanted to donate the tag to HOAL, youth, or general hunting public. In this case since the person would not be loosing their bonus points they COULD NOT sign the tag over to their child, instead the tag would be randomly drawn to a youth in a youth hunter pool, much like the pool they already have established for depredation hunts.

If the tag holder does not elect to assign to the HOAL or youth pool, then it goes to the next alternate who applied for that tag.

Now this is where I have to nit pick again, sorry. You said, "I would like to see a system of turning the tags back for use, but not with a possible leap frog by using the original draw." I am still confused by what you mean here. In my explanation in the previous post I explained how no "leap frogging" would occur with the "tag return policy". I asked if there was err in this explanation but have not gotten a response confirming this so was this just knee-jerk reaction based on fears or id there a legitimate situation where you see this occurring with the policy I proposed? Can you please explain?
 
Bubbas, I don't think you wasted any time at all. Although you didn't intend to start a debate you opened up a valuable discussion and I think it was a pretty worthwhile thing to do. Those that disagree with your thoughts are not necessarily averse to change philosophically; they simply disagree with THESE changes. I chose to join the discussion because I thought there were probably more people out there that agreed with my opinions. I do NOT have all the answers and I am open to changing my positions with sufficient support to do so. I share your passion for making the process as good as it can be.

I find myself confused about one thing. Why the passion on the tag turn-in issue? I understand the logic about the wasted tags and improving a process if it can be enhanced however I still don't understand the bigger motivation (remember, I am selfish and I assume others are too). I understand the passion if we were talking about members of the military or people suddenly afflicted with severe medical issues (and I think there should be a policy/process in place for those people ? with supporting documentation of course). I don't understand why someone would be passionate about allowing people to turn in tags for more discretionary reasons. What if a guy in the top 20% of the bonus pool drew a tag for the unit 9 early bull shooting gallery. Not much rain during the spring and summer so he decides to turn the tag back in and have his bonus points reinstated. With his points reinstated he can now reapply the following year and hunt when the moisture and odds of a big bull are higher. Maybe his preferred guide is unavailable and he would prefer to wait until a year when he can hunt with him (because he knows it will probably be his last Arizona tag). I know, I know, set a cutoff date right? Well if the cutoff date is too close to the initial tag notification date you are going to still have lots of wasted unused tags because people will have no recourse to deal with unforeseen conflicts (which is what we have today). I just don't understand the logic behind allocating resources and accepting potential corruption risk to accommodate this. I like many others on this board would reschedule my wedding (or avoid the month of September all together) if it meant participating on a hunt I had been applying for over the course of several years. I honestly don't get it.

Cheers,
Ryan
 
Ryan and any other initial doubters,
Thank you for your questions. Let me do my best to answer them. Let me start by saying I recognize we all, including myself, have selfish desires to some extent and believe it or not that is why I love this proposed change so much. I think it maximizes "happiness" for the most amount of people. If you are truly open minded like you say then first think about the whole picture before deciding on the veracity of what I am saying. Second, you cannot oppose every proposed change based on the argument that it is open for corruption. If you base your decisions on that fear then you yourself are actually the greatest opposition to your own position. If the Department wanted to corrupt the system then there is nothing stopping them. They could manipulate, and likely do to some extent, the draw in any form and to any degree they want. In fact, that is another reason why I feel an electronic, computer based draw is so critical. Software can be instituted that makes an electronic, historical footprint of a recorded event which cannot be changed. For instance, in the health field in which I work I am paperless and make electronic clinical notes. Once I sign off on those notes I CANNOT go back and change those notes. I can amend them but the original notes are still there with the amendment following. This is crucial to the notes being a legal document. Right now it is absolutely ludicrous and an outright criminal act that a governmental agency responsible for MILLIONS of taxpayers money can carry out this draw with no independent and legal documentation and recording of the draw process. Come on, I mean this is not the NBA draft we are talking about LOL! So keep in mind that I am all for minimizing corruption. The threat however can never be completely removed and with an electronic, independent, online draw this "tag return policy" would not lead to increased corruption.

Now, to answer your concern. The bigger motivation is simple.....less wasted tags means more people are hunting in a given year. This CLEARLY, is more efficient in maximizing the amount of happy hunters. OK this is where you have to forget about your concern about the discretionary applicant for a moment...PLEASE. The person (alternate from original draw) who is the benefactor of the returned tag is certainly HAPPIER. He is now hunting when he thought he wasn't going to be hunting. The applicant who returned the tag is HAPPIER because they do not loose their points that they have religiously built up and sacrificed for. And the beauty of it is no one gets screwed or leap frogged. You do not have to piss your fiance off and schedule your wedding around whether or not you THINK you will get drawn....so now our significant others are HAPPIER and this makes the WHOLE WORLD HAPPIER and leads to WORLD PEACE...LOL.

You have to answer this question, sincerely and without prejudice! Does it really matter what the motivations are of the person who returns the tag? If the tag goes to someone who wants to use it and wants to use it so much that they will give up their bonus points to obtain the tag then I ask who losses out?

Now, theoretically it could happen where someone wants to return a tag and none of the alternates want the tag (the odds of this are really, really low but statistically a possibility). There is an easy solution to this possibility. Either A) the applicant CANNOT return the tag and must waste the tag and loose bonus points or B) they can donate their tag to HOAL or a youth hunter pool of applicants. Again, no matter what happens...everyone is happy!

Please I ask anyone to look at this unbiasedly and without fear of uncontrollable corruption and explain to me where this may not be the case!
 
This is a good, healthy debate. I would like to weigh in on the "tag turn in" idea. I think it is a good idea, and I think we may have all overlooked something if my logic is correct.

They would not need to conduct any additional draws for these "turn in tags". The system is already in place. During the draw, everyone is assigned a random number. Then they simply go down the list and assign tags based on you choices(1st and 2nd choice round). All they would need to do is go to the next lowest random number that put in for that unit AND did not already draw a tag.

Am i missing something?
 
Fairness, fairness for who? Not for Joe that wanted that tag but drew 2nd thru 5th choices, he won't be considered as an alternate. There was always someone down the line that wanted Joe's tag, where's their fairness.

I wasn't sure if you were basing your explaination off the 3,4,5 choices and forgetting about the 2nd. I can see your point based on the 3,4,5th choice for elk. If someone puts those choices down they are willing to take anything. I kinda threw them in at the time thinking, I'm excluding the deer draw with my examples, most people put 5 choices for deer. So with your explaination of passing over someone that drew a 3,4,5th elk tag, I can see that.

For elk most of us think 1 and 2, that's it. What I really want and what I would settle for otherwise. They are the two that are looked at when your lucky # comes up.

If you have alternate choices chosen from the original line of succession, more than likely whoever would have gotten that tag next, drew their second choice. So the alternate could end up being someone quite a ways down the line.

No one may find out if they didn't get the their first choice, but if it was a really good tag someone would be singing how great a deal they got to the world. Putting 2 and 2 together isn't hard on how close you were to getting your first choice. You may not know if it would have been you but can figure if you were passed. I can see lawsuits to open records to see.

Even if it's kept quiet an unfairness happened non the less. The only true fairness would be the person next in line and no one else. Most have drawn another tag because the odds of the numbers.

I truly don't think we could say, they don't have a beef because they put in a second choice, no matter what that choice was. Their first choice is now available, they are next in line, unless they refuse it, it's their's because of succession of the line we are basing the alternates on. There's no way to reshuffle the tags on that line.

So I think a tag should be donated into a new system, the tagholder should have some say I agree. I like the HOAL, youth pool or general public pool idea, sounds great. When a tag comes in, they shuffle the numbers and go down the list until it's taken, no matter what tag it is. Could be a great one or a L.O. tag, who knows.

BPs are probably my biggest concern, I also wish there was a system to work fairly with those that have real issues with losing their BPs because of true emergencies or service. But that will never happen in the near future.

Anyone else that just wants to turn their tag in should not walk away with their BPs. They could have applied for a BP instead of a hunt choice, they took the chance of drawing and did. For an incentive to donate their tag back in the system some where, I would be willing to only penalize them a percentage of their points. At least 2 like if they didn't apply at all and keep their LP.

Just a thought, in reality, the draw is for a tag, the bps are to help get the tag, you used the bps and got the tag, their mission is over. What you do with the tag is now your choice.

Just some more brainstorming is all.

Kent
 
Returning to a three-year wait for certain tags would be a step backward. We had this in Arizona for antelope and elk for many, many years, and despite some of the comments above, it didn't change the statistical odds of an individual drawing a tag.

I like having the ability to apply on line with credit cards, though.

Bill Quimby
 
Kent,
I can't believe all this discussion, just on the tag return policy.....hehehe. I think the other ones are more crucial but this one is fun to work through.

Thank you for bringing to light your latest concern regarding the first and second choices. That is why we have constructive discussion, heh? You are right, I was not taking that aspect into consideration. Long story shortened, that would not be too difficult to resolve if we decided the overall benefits would be worth it, especially with a software program taken in to account. Really harder things have been worked through. Essentially, the tag turned back in goes to the next person in line to have drawn that tag (1st alternate). If that person drew their second choice, that person would be contacted and asked if he would rather have his first or second choice. If that person would rather have their first they could. Then the second choice tag of that person goes through a similar process until final destination. If none of the three alternates want the tag, only then will it get donated to HOAL or a youth. Maybe split the donated tags 50/50 to HOAL and youth.

Now I admit in those rare cases when that would be necessary that may seem like a lot of work all for a result that you and others may deem not worth it for the end result. It really would not be difficult to carry out.....let me clarify that, it SHOULDN'T be that difficult to carry out.

How bout now? See, by the end we'll have something hashed out that we can just mail to The Commission.....LOL. Boy, I would love to see if they read it and if so, how much light of day they would give it. Hell, even if it was hand delivered by the largest Sportsman's Group in the state with 1 million approval signatures, they wouldn't give it the light of day!

That is the true travesty! This really is the worst example of Dictatorship camouflaged as Democracy!
 
Bill,
I understand what you are saying and I addressed this belief in an earlier post. If you truly are not one who has been fortunate enough to draw multiple tags in a 3 year period to be biased to this point, then let me explain why it DOES make a difference. It is correct that when you take a hunt that has a 1% draw rate with 6000 applicants that even when you change out the results by a few the statistical odds will not appear to have changed. That is only because of the statistics provided by the department are so large and nature and skewed. Do not be fooled by this. To make it easy math, take a hunt with 100 tags. Hypothetically lets imagine a draw where 7 people drew 7 of those 100 tags, whom had drawn a tag within a 3 year prior period. That is very realistic. You could confirm this happening through research into records. But anecdotally this is a reasonable hypothetical situation. That is 7%! More importantly that represents 7 people who will be going elk hunting who may have waited an awfully long time to hunt and have possibly invested a disproportionately more amount of money to have that opportunity. Are you telling me that if a system could EASILY be instituted to balance that occurrence out a little, that would be insignificant? Rationally, I disagree. Now irrationally, if you are someone who has benefited from this happening then I understand your biased opinion, just don't agree that it is for the betterment of "the Greater Good".
 
Guys:

Here is a suggestion.

Send in your comments/ideas to [email protected] and share with them your suggestions to make the system better!

These are the folks who can get the process started for any changes and while there are rules to follow regarding changes to and in the system, I'm sure they'd like to hear them!

You boys have posed some fairly interesting ideas, some of which IMO, should be heard by the G&F Dept.

Just my thoughts,

Don Martin
 
Ok, here we go.

Az big game draw tags may be retuned to the dept for redistribution.
The tag holder will have 3 options to place in order of desired redistribution.

1. HOAL (long description because most don't know it exists)
2. Alternate list (description of alternates being selected in order of next in line of unsuccessful applicants for that hunt # at time of original draw, legal mummble jummble about if you applied for a second choice and were drawn, all rights to any other tag are forfeit, so on and so forth, blah,blah)
3. Youth Pool (description)

Turning in a Tag will incure a BP penalty of 2 bps maximum over the hunter ed and loyalty point.

(I wish this could be in there also)
An applicant can request a panel review and submit evidence of real hardship or service reqirements that could reinstate all bps.

That's as fair as I can think of right now.

I'm scared take up #3 it'll be another 60 pgs, LOL.

Kent
 
Don makes a good point but I would make sure that you send them to the commissioners or address them publicly at a meeting so they don't get buried in someones workload and they are on the record at a meeting.

Bubbas I think the tag return point has merit but it has to have teeth in it. There are too many out there that will turn a tag in if it doesn't have penalty especially if they make a mistake or want a better unit. The penalty will stop any abuses and limit it to those of legitmate purpose and that should be it's intent.
 
LAST EDITED ON Apr-21-09 AT 09:17AM (MST)[p]I like it Kent. I think some sort of penalty is fair. I am in the office now so didn't have time to re-read the max 2 point thing so your comment may be in line with this but how bout to make it simple the applicant who turns in a tag does NOT acquire a bonus point that year. That really is a big deterrent and sufficient in my opinion because dropping even one point in the max point game can equate to years of not drawing depending on unit applied for. If there was no good that came out of the tag return process then I would think a higher levy would be warranted but remember there is still good that comes out of the return because either a regular draw applicant will be hunting when they otherwise would not be or even better possibly a youth or HOAL hunter. I do not fell we should over punish the tag returner when this is the case. Just a little deterrent to appease those who have a problem with motivations other than emergencies.

Once we hash out some proposals that have been refined enough to stand up to most concerns then I would love to put them together if someone would take the responsibility to pass them along to the necessary agencies. I feel this should be done by someone who has a little more faith in The Department so it can be done with a little more tact! LOL . I would not be that person. Any takers?

So KRP, Boskee, Javi, Don and a like....Who wants to take on another point? LOL. Don't everyone raise their hand. LOL
 
I'm personally going to put this recommendation forward but will also add the concerns and twists it took to get there. I just have to work a way to keep it kinda short.

I have to spend a little time with the wife (she says I've been ignoring her and on the computer to much lately, imagine that) then I'll be ready for #3, I can't even remember what it is. You guys can get started without me I'll be there.

Kent
 
LAST EDITED ON Apr-21-09 AT 11:09PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Apr-21-09 AT 11:04?PM (MST)

LAST EDITED ON Apr-21-09 AT 10:57?PM (MST)

LAST EDITED ON Apr-21-09 AT 10:55?PM (MST)

Bubbas, agree with the tag turn in policy as defined by Kent (2 bonus point penalty minimum ? remember, most smart guys are going to drop out of the tough to draw application game once they finally pull their coveted tag). I disagree that a one point penalty is sufficient. A one point penalty could still leave someone in the 20% pool for the following year which pretty much negates the penalty in my opinion. Regardless of whether the tag goes to HOAL, an alternate or a youth, the benefit to the person turning the tag in remains the same. The cost should be sufficiently high to deter people from doing this because the backend phone calls and administration will cost the department some dollars. I think the magic penalty number is somewhere between 2 and 3 bonus points. A two to three point penalty would almost certainly knock someone out of the game for a year or two which I believe would be sufficiently deterring. I think the cost of this all needs to be factored into the benefit. I am sure game and fish can provide some statistics about the number of unused tags based on post hunt surveys or in-field tag checks by field officers. If you really wanted to get this done, I would recommend putting together a high-level cost benefit analysis to pitch this on a ?cost per tag to prevent it from being wasted? level. For example, the cost of one administrative assistant (you could call them a tag Reallocation Agent if you want) at $40,000/year (salary + benefits) divided by the projected number of tags that you think would be saved by this program. If the cost of saving a tag is less than the cost of supporting the infrastructure to add a new tag, the program would seem like an obvious no-brainer. If the cost to save a tag is exorbitant, it would seem to be a bad idea in my opinion. I also find it hard to believe that game and fish doesn't already factor unused tags into their current unit allocation models. If they do this currently or plan to do it in the future, this program would fail to deliver on the additional opportunity portion of the equation which would just turn it into a customer service desk for uncommitted hunters.

A couple more points. You claim that the Arizona Game and Fish Department doesn't provide transparency in regards to the draw. In case you were not aware, their marketing department provides lists of every hunter drawn in the big Game Draw as long as you are a true business or a non-profit. There is a significant charge if you are a business and plan to use the data for business purposes, the information is free if you are a non-profit and plan to use the information for non-business purposes. I suspect there are several people that have for profit businesses and non-profit businesses as a way to access this information for free (get the data under the name of the non-profit). This is another one of those potential loopholes that requires some oversight. I have purchased this information for business purposes and I can tell you that there are a lot of very well known names in the outdoor business that seem to pickup good tags using bonus wives (see comment 36 of this thread for a bonus wife description). I say "seem" because this is the only explanation I can think of for some individuals to pickup quality tags in tough to draw units as consistently as they do. This is a perfectly legal thing to do, there are just people like me that make a mental note of who they are. I think there should be limits to the spread (maximum difference between the person with the most points and the least points on a group hunting application ? 5 seems like a reasonable number to me). You want to level the playing field, this would do it. I can also tell you that it appears the proportion of residents to non-residents is completely consistent with a 10% cap. I see no evidence that Game and Fish has is doing anything shady (at least not in the last 2 years).



One other quick point. You mentioned you didn't feel qualified to offer up
suggestions directly. Coupled with the fact that you fail to disclose even your first name it seems kind of suspicious to me but oh well (I know you already addressed this point but I am still unconvinced). This isn't a personal attack I just find this peculiar. Anyway, I have had good luck submitting suggestions directly to the commissioners (see Don?s last post). The last item I submitted helped to close some ambiguity around the age at which a parent could apply their kids to the Big Game draw. The language used to be a little ambiguous around "hunting" versus "applying". I got nervous when they reduced license prices for kids (was afraid there would be a flood of five year olds that bought 15 dollar licenses and would start accumulating cheap bonus points). Was glad to see the rules clarified and the loophole closed this last year (even though I have a 1-year old and a 3-year old myself). I am sure I wasn?t the only person to raise the alarm on that issue. I just wanted to demonstrate that if something has merit it doesn't need a trusted sponsor to champion it. If you have a good no-brainer idea, submit it to the commissioners. Most seem like pretty reasonable people.

One last point. My background is in business (got some business degrees from sundevil university, got some big student loan debt too). Anyway, I work for a corporation and one of my responsibilities is incorporating automation into manual processes. Most of these processes are very similar to the workflow around the Arizona Game and Fish Drawing system. I realize you cannot fight technology, however you can understand the impacts and voice your concerns if those impacts are not in your best interests (or inconsistent with the interests of what you believe to be the greater majority).

This thread has gotten very long. There seems to be some consensus on the tag turn in issue but the rest of the issues are wide open. If anyone cares to see both ends of the argument, I recommend you drink a big cup of coffee a push your way through my posts (javihammer) and Bubbas posts. Bubbas and I have completely opposing views in most cases.

Cheers,
Ryan K
 
Ryan,
At least we can seem to agree that a tag return policy has some merit and CAN be good. I feel the bonus point penalty you suggest is too steep, again because it doesn't really hurt anyone but only helps additional people. When the penalty is that steep (2-3 points) it will rarely be utilized except absolute circumstances where the tag can't be used. I would like to see it being used as a benefit to others, both the tag returner and the new recipient. But that is just a difference of philosophy...like I said it is a start.

To answer your question about not sharing my name. I believe there needs to be some serious change in The Department structure, both how it is run and whom it is made up of. My biggest concern is with The Commission. Sitting around and taking a soft stance on issues has PROVED to be non-fruitful. The case where you made a suggestion and an issue was addressed in my opinion was just circumstance. Your suggestion just happened to support an issue they had already recognized and most likely planned on resolving anyways versus you making a suggestion, them being open to it and considering it and then acting on it. Plus I don't recall ever getting any say in that specific matter you refer to. That is one of my issues with the way the system is run.

So, I believe in order to get change mentalities need to be more passionately expressed. The Commission does not respect reason and passive expression of that reason, PERIOD. Unless there is a well thought out plan that is teamed up with a real threat to their all powerful control, they will do what best serves THEM and THEIR own philosophies. I have strong feelings against anyone who practices in this way and let it be known. Doing this puts me out there as a threat to them and I do not trust them to behave morally with the knowledge of who I am. You of all people who fear of them engaging in corrupt draw practices should understand this.

At some point, when I recover from beating my head against the wall on the Tag Return Proposal, I will post a separate thread on each individual point. That way it will be more easy to follow and respond on each point from others jumping in new. Hopefully we can get some good feedback then.

Cheers
 
Going from 20% to 50%

I'm not a math guru and probably have this all screwed up. Using a calculator and a scratch pad I've tried to work the numbers out 10 yrs using Unit 1 archery bull and unit 4B archery bull. A premium hunt and the least desirable rut hunt.

Hopefully someone that knows what they're doing can run the numbers and say if I'm close. Basically I took the 2008 info G&F puts out for each unit and advanced it 10 years assuming same percentages of those putting in 1st and 2nd choice, how many bps it would take each year to be in the max pool.

What I seemed to come up with on both hunts is a 1 year jump for those in the top 3 or 4 highest bp groups, then they are quickly taken out of the system and it starts to clog even worse and moves right back to where it would have been with more people in the max pool.

The unit 1 tag becomes much harder to draw unless you are in the exact bp number that is now required and even then most years there will be more people in the max pool than tags so you're still in a lottery, it does look like you will be guaranteed a tag every three years, if you finally made it to the max pool, as a resident.

The 4B tag has a quick jump and goes right back where it was.

I may be wrong on my numbers but I think I am right with this.

There are 150 tags in unit 1, 3700 people applied, no matter where you take them out of the process,(someone that has 0 bps or someone that has 14 bps) there will still be 3700 apps next year and 150 tags. If you take more out of the top that's less from the middle, the middle gets clogged and the top gets heavy as the middle quickly moves up. How will we find a way to get 3700 people through the system, even if there wasn't new ones coming aboard all the time. We can't, some will drop, others will go to a different hunt, who knows where they go.

The only real change I see is NRs will be in a 100% PP system even on a hunt like 4B, They will for sure have to wait 6 yrs for a tag instead of having a decent chance of drawing a tag before that. If things didn't change a NR will for sure get a tag in 6 yrs for 4B, could be the 1st.

Unit 1, 14 bps was the highest. Last year those with 7 bps or more got 1/2 the tags, 718 people. the other half went to those with 0 to 6, 2989 people. Seems as if that is how a lottery system should work. There's no room to adjust for 3700 people to get that tag anytime, we just have to let things work themselves out.

Heck, I think I confused myself, which isn't hard. I'm not throwing this out as an answer to the question, just wondering if we can work through the numbers and see if this is kinda correct.

Kent
 
one of the best mm.com posts ever.

krp,

the point of an increased % in the max point pool is not going to "push folks through the draw," in the manner in which you presented it. there is not a system in the world that will "push folks through the draw," apart from raising tag numbers and at the expense of quality. it is simple math. however, i believe the purpose of increasing the max point pass % is to "create a more fair substructure for the draw."

this yr. i have heard of 7 people who drew a PREMIUM unit elk tag that have had PREMIUM elk tags in the last 2 yrs. i am talking about one specific unit, not to mention all the folks i know that drew PREMIUM elk tags back-to-back in different PREMIUM units. this is very frustrating and "not fair" to the folks that have waited and sit on 12+ bp's and can't draw an archery elk tag.

no one can argue, increasing the % of the max pass only creates a more fair system and spreads the PREMIUM tags out to a greater population, "those who have waited their turn." who cares if it clogs up the bottom or middle end. those folks have obviously drawn in recent years.

az. is behind the times when it comes to draw hunt substructure.

1. colorado is a strict preference system
2. utah is a 50% max point pass
3. nevada is a squared bp system
etc...................

AZ. a bunch of folks who think luck should be the name of the game. might as well play the lottery.
 
Ok Kent you jumped into the next point before I could get a new thread started. Must have caught up on the wife time.....as if that ever really happens LOL.

For those who read this post. I listed 5 points of proposal regarding changes I, and many others, feel need to be made NOT ONLY to make the draw more fair (NOT COMPLETELY FAIR-impossible) but has the OPPORTUNITY to add benefit ( see tag return policy-point #2).

For a full list of the 5 points please see my original post here. For a very well hashed through discussion of the Tag Return point (#2) please read through this thread read the responses by Bubbas, Javihammer and KRP.

For the other points I will start individual threads titled for each individual proposal. This will allow for a more organized discussion by all. This is very constructive, if not ultimately fruitful, to try and get Sportsmen to logically hash through these types of issues. Who knows we may actually encourage change.
 
Hey bubbas,

You make some valid points.

The one I would like to see implemented most is number 2. The option of returning a tag would be great.

There are two instances where I have burned multiple years accumulation of points and not been able to make the hunt due to family or personal reasons.

Jim
 
If I remember correctly? During and immediately after the whole USO fiasco a few years ago whereby a bunch of extra tags were distributed to appease Judge Broomfield and the Ninth Circus Court; they allowed those that wanted to turn their tags back in, to do just that and they were allowed to keep their bonus points. I know a couple people that turned them in - and heard of several others that said they were turning in their tags.
 
Bubbas,
Bubbas, I am not sure if you are on board with the penalty portion of the tag turn in program or not. Previous posts said you were and your latest posts support a one-point penalty which isn't a penalty at all. The devil is in the details and this isn't gonna work if there isn't some kind of bonus point cost to do it. You do make some other good points in your last post; I think breaking the other issues into separate threads is a good idea too.

About the commission. The recommendations and subsequent changes that I have submitted to the commissioners could have been circumstantial but I choose to believe there are some reasonable members on the commission (they don't seem to be very archery friendly I will say though). I don't pick and choose; I send ideas to every single one of them. Some are better about sending back a response than others. I know for sure the last issue was taken seriously because one of the commissioners sent back a pretty thoughtful response.

One other quick point on the tag turn in issue. And I am not trying to be a Negative Nelly but I think these processes need to be thought through before they are submitted for review. You know how much I like to seek and destroy loopholes. Consider this scenario.

Scenario:
A Bone Collector submits his wife and two of his children for bonus points every year. He loves to hunt but the rest of the family is kind of indifferent. The family doesn't have much discretionary income so the husband submits applications for himself but buys bonus points for the rest of the family (what the hell, bonus points are cheap and maybe the wife and kids will come around on the hunting thing someday). Over the course of about 10 years, the bowhunter applies on his own and draws a few decent tags, including a good bull tag last year. The kids are in their early twenties, it is clear they would rather write poetry or scrapbook (or make their own kids) than get up early and hike up mountains for fun. Despite all of their bonus points, they have more important things in life to do than hunting. Bone Collector Dad has an idea. His preferred hunting unit only requires six points in order to get into the bonus pool. Although he only has two points, his wife and kids have 12 points each. As a family, they have 38 combined points for elk. If they applied together, the group application would average out to 9 points. Enough points for everyone to easily draw a tag in the max points pool. Everyone applies together that year and EVERYONE draws a great bull tag! Cheers all around!

And now the kicker! Game and Fish just launched a new program that allows hunters to turn in tags and retain the majority of their bonus points. This is great, the kids haven't shot their bow in years and the wife has a spa-week scheduled during that time. The wife and kids elect to turn in their tags (after all, the cost is only one point per person) and Dad gets to repeat the same process next year and go on a great hunt two years in a row. Even better, the wife and kids retain enough of their bonus points to do the same (same = help Dad get drawn) for a third year. And possibly even a year or two after that with a little luck. Bone Collector Dad has successfully gamed the system courtesy of the tag turn in program. And he has four good bulls on the wall to show for it.

You may think this is a paranoia scenario but these tags are worth big bucks and there are a whole lot of people out there that are much smarter than us that are willing to do whatever it takes to draw a tag. I see three potential options.

? Those that draw on a group application may turn in a tag but will not be allowed to keep their bonus points
? Those that turn in a tag are only credited the average amount of bonus points for the group that year minus the 2 point penalty (in the case of the scenario above, each family member would be left with 7 points (9 points ? 2 points for the penalty).
? Any tag drawn on a youth tag with a youth license is non-transferable (this will keep shady Brady Bunch dads from accumulating points by USING their children as BONUS WIVES).

Some other options??

? Put restrictions on the difference between the most and least number of bonus points that people can have on a group application. I recommend the difference be no more than 5 points. (I know I already mentioned this in a previous post)
? Have a bonus point expiration period. Applicants must submit at least ONE ?live? application every three years. If not, they lose all but their hunter education point.

Hunting for loopholes is still hunting right?

Next installment will be Javihammer?s opinion on Nevada?s squaring system  . Still educating myself on the details.

Cheers,
Ryan
 

Similar threads

Buck300
Non-Res application question
Replies
3
Views
219
Horniac
Horniac
M
Changes in Regulation
Replies
4
Views
721
ICMDEER
ICMDEER
SDBugler
Elk Draw Questions
Replies
34
Views
2k
ClearCreek
C

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

Big Velvet Buck
D9DB3D99-A63A-44AC-AF77-AB05CF4F42E5.jpeg
9669DDF0-A5E2-437F-8DF6-9EF68D217EA3.jpeg
1699897491597.png
Lots of points going on!
743658C7-3127-4918-B705-511EC130A006.jpeg
Arizona Strip Archery Beast
1B51D59B-EA7D-4332-B1AF-E663DCCC8B1B.jpeg
012CD579-DE47-477E-8DF7-B0D7EF5F843D.jpeg
Buck.JPG
IMG_0164.JPG
FB0C9FE0-9814-498E-A1A4-1D98A140FCFD.jpeg

Arizona Hunting Guides & Outfitters

SilverGrand Outfitters

Offering mule deer, elk, antelope, bighorn sheep, javelina, and turkey hunts in Nevada and Arizona.

Arizona Elk Outfitters

Offering the serious hunter a chance to hunt trophy animals in the great Southwest.

A3 Trophy Hunts

An Arizona Outfitter specializing in the harvest of World Class big game of all species.

Arizona Strip Guides

Highly experienced and highly dedicated team of hardworking professional Arizona Strip mule deer guides.

Urge 2 Hunt

THE premier hunts in Arizona for trophy elk, mule deer, couse deer and javelina.

Shadow Valley Outfitters

AZ Strip and Kaibab mule deer, big bulls during the rut, spot-n-stalk pronghorn and coues deer hunts.

Back
Top Bottom