Conspiracy theories 2021

[Broomer]

Regarding the 2021 big game draw that seemingly is being called B.S by many MM’ers here. I can’t see anything that tells me that the system is having errors. If I wouldn’t have followed the tread “credit card hits” I would think that the draw, the payment accounts, the portals were all working just fine and that the department would update everything and the credit cards would start to get dinged for tag fees over the next few days.

correct me if I’m wrong, but in the past 20 years I’ve never been able to see anything to tip me off to drawing a tag via my account, the portal as it became available in recent years, or some kind of back door secret.

I received an email from the department that said Thursday was the last day to update cards, and on Friday I received an email saying the draw was in process, and that draw results and tags would be updated and sent out by April 2nd.

when I have drawn a permit the first event to let me know was my credit card being hit with a charge just like everyone else. I was never able to even log in anywhere and see what I had even applied for. The system has NEVER let me see anything prior to draw results posted. I would always have to call and get that info from the consumer service ladies.

so why is the department apologizing for the inconvenience? Why are there conspiracy theories being cast by members on this site? I’ve looked on the Game and fish and I can’t find anything that tells me something has gone terribly wrong here.

did I miss something?

 

[AZ8]

In regards to the portal, that’s really irrelevant. The portal has never showed us the results as they happened. It’s a whole separate deal.

The real issue now is they told us the deadline to update credit cards was the 25th. The draw always happens the next morning. This reduces the possibility of your credit card being compromised from midnight of the deadline to the draw. About an 8 hour window.

Every hour that now passes increases a person‘s risk of having their credit card compromised. We live in a digital world and things happen more frequently now with credit card fraud. It only takes one instance, say at a gas station, to lock your card.

To me, this is the biggest issue now. Somebody’s going to miss out on a tag because the department dragged their feet several days after locking the ability to update your credit card.

Now, if the draw happens this morning.....well that helps everybody! ?

 

[tmbr_hntr]

What AZ8 said.

You either have to run the cards in really short order after shutting down the ability to change or you have to provide a system for someone who draws and their card is declined a way to provide payment after the fact. They used to notify people who drew, and the card was declined. When they went away from that they can't have a large window. 100% at least someone, maybe many, will fall into this for every 24hrs that goes by.

It's a really big fail on their part and I have a feeling the longer it goes the bigger the mess they will have to clean up after.

What would you do if they closed the CC change last Thursday, but don't run your card until next Thursday while in the meantime your card got canceled and that Unit 23 early elk tag you drew got handed to someone else? Pretty sure you'd blow your top on someone at the F&G!

 

[Broomer]

Ok, yeah that makes sense. Obviously other states including my home state allows for a buffer on declined credit cards. Why did Arizona go away from this?

 

[Blank]

Let's just go to paying full price up front, and forget about the problem of declined cards. Refund back on the card, if they don't draw. Then, if you really want to hunt, you will find a way to make it good the first time. Will correct some of the point creep and help odds too!!

 

[Bluehair]

First world problems. The reason there are so many applicants is it’s too easy.

Funny story about the good old days before the internet. My first indication that I had been drawn for my desert was a mailbox full of guide brochures congratulating me. The tag didn’t come for a week after that.

 

[huntazido]

I doubt G&F does anything that will reduce the number of applicants. They are selling hopes and dreams for $13 a pop plus a license fee. All the states figured out a decade or so ago there is mtn of gold to made in application fees alone. And the best part is, it doesn't even affect the resource. win win

 

[WapitiBob]

Let's just go to paying full price up front, and forget about the problem of declined cards. Refund back on the card, if they don't draw. Then, if you really want to hunt, you will find a way to make it good the first time. Will correct some of the point creep and help odds too!!

As of last year their cc processor would not allow them to take money up front because of the number of refunds. This year they are using CyberSource so a change may be coming.

 

[Katoom]

In keeping with the OP's title, maybe there IS more going on here.
I am gonna go with its a giant sting operation to catch people using false addresses or multiple identities in order to win tags. Or perhaps taking down an inside racket where the draw was getting rigged by an employee or a vendor. This would explain why they are "going through each application manually." Seriously, in this day and age it is much less likely you can't get two pretty simple databases to talk to each other. So how does it end? I am hoping with a big press release and thanks to all of us for our patience because they had to keep everything secret and keep with the cover story of ineptitude to maintain operational security. All applicants who didn't call or email the department with complaints will get a complimentary tag. The squeaky wheels will get nothing.... NOTHING!!!!

 

[StickFlicker]

As of last year their cc processor would not allow them to take money up front because of the number of refunds. This year they are using CyberSource so a change may be coming.

It's not a cc processor, it's Arizona's banking laws that won't allow them to take the money upfront.

 

[HikeHunt61]

It's not a cc processor, it's Arizona's banking laws that won't allow them to take the money upfront.

This is the rumor. I would love to know exactly what law that is. Seems the particular law involved is too broad and impacts people in a negative way that certainly was not intended. Does anyone know who is knowledgeable of the law (or lawsuit that resulted)?

 

[AZ8]

This is the rumor. I would love to know exactly what law that is. Seems the particular law involved is too broad and impacts people in a negative way that certainly was not intended. Does anyone know who is knowledgeable of the law (or lawsuit that resulted)?

I’ve searched for this unicorn for years and have yet to find the specific law. I’ve searched all the banking laws in A.R.S., and haven’t found anything specific.

I think its one of those .....”let’s say it enough and people begin to believe it“ type of deals. Yet not one person can cite the specific law that applies to this issue.

 

[Blank]

I believe it is the wording under the DFI/ARS statute that refers to authorized charges being for "transfer of goods and service", under the Trade and Commerce sections. If they charge you for a tag, but do not provide that tag, it wouldn't be an authorized charge, and technically you wouldn't be liable for it.

If enough people asked for it, I believe the Dept would seek to get the statutes changed, but that might open up a much bigger can of worms than the state is willing to do.

Who knows??

 

[HikeHunt61]

Hmmm. Guess bugging AZ G&F is the best course. I worry they got sued or massively protested by a few folks who didn't like "loaning" them a few hundred bucks- thus the ugly process. Seems simple enough to make it an option in the application process- even if they charge a nominal fee to process the refunds.

 

[HikeHunt61]

Funny how laws get interpreted. You can put a deposit down on a house to the tune of $10,000- and its just that, on the hope that the transaction goes through. Seems like G&F can charge the tag fee and have it be a "service" of 100% down payment on the chance you draw. If you do not, the "contract" requires them to give your money back. All said, seems time to at least rattle the bushes at the G&F.

 

[AZ8]

I believe it is the wording under the DFI/ARS statute that refers to authorized charges being for "transfer of goods and service", under the Trade and Commerce sections. If they charge you for a tag, but do not provide that tag, it wouldn't be an authorized charge, and technically you wouldn't be liable for it.

If enough people asked for it, I believe the Dept would seek to get the statutes changed, but that might open up a much bigger can of worms than the state is willing to do.

Who knows??

I’ve previously searched Title 44 but could never find where this applies. Just to satisfy my curiosity...lol...if you have the specific Chapter and Article under Title 44 I’d appreciate it. Nothing personal, its just that I’ve heard this excuse ad nausem for years and would be nice to actually see it in writing. ?

Thanks.

 

[fullcry]

Arizona has always had the worst drawing system in the West.
Many states have been doing computer based applications for years.
Arizona is always last at everything.

 

[Blank]

AZ8. Wish I was better versed in all things AZ, sounds like you know much better than I. Always thought that Title 17 covered AZGF and that T&C fell under 44; if they weren't able to provide a good or service, then it wasn't legal to offer. Will have to check further when I have some free time, hope to learn the real reason behind it.

I think that is why Texas does their draw the way they do it also. Once you draw your permit, you have 10 days to pay for it, or it rolls into a second draw. Will see if my friend in TPWD can be reached. Good luck

 

[AZ8]

AZ8. Wish I was better versed in all things AZ, sounds like you know much better than I. Always thought that Title 17 covered AZGF and that T&C fell under 44; if they weren't able to provide a good or service, then it wasn't legal to offer. Will have to check further when I have some free time, hope to learn the real reason behind it.

I think that is why Texas does their draw the way they do it also. Once you draw your permit, you have 10 days to pay for it, or it rolls into a second draw. Will see if my friend in TPWD can be reached. Good luck

Thanks. Yeah, Title 17 is G&F. Unfortunately nothing there either! Haha. My search continues.....

 

[OutdoorWriter]

I'm going to hate myself in the morning for getting into this, but...

I'm pretty sure the law in question is indeed part of Title 44 (44-1703), and it requires that the CC processing company must have a surety bond to cover the amount for transactions that have been charged but not completed. The cost of such a bond for the amount of money involved would be quite high. Thus no CC processor would be interested since that cost would negate any fees from the trancation that AGFD would pay. If I recall the bond would cost 5% of the total money taken in.

 

[HikeHunt61]

LOL. Sleep well dispensing cool knowledge OW. So is that like saying the charges are "not completed" because they typically get refunded- since for AZ elk we can assume the vast majority of applications are unsuccessful? If so, might make sense. However, the way around that is to issue refund checks.

 

[HikeHunt61]

And to complete the thought- they could offer that as an option when applying, and charge a fee for issuance of the refund check. In that case, all charges to cc will be completed transactions.

 

[OutdoorWriter]

Right. EVERY application is an open-ended transaction without delivering goods or services in a timely manner. It doen't matter how the refunds are done. They simply are not allowed to hold the "money" that was proffered via a CC for the duration of the application period without some guarantee that the money will be there when refunds are due. That's what a surety bond is for. Obviously, Title 14 is AZ statutes, so in other states, the mileage will vary.

 

[HikeHunt61]

Sorry for 3 straight posts- but after reading the law, I doubt my refund check approach would help. I see the dilemma...

 

[OutdoorWriter]

Sorry for 3 straight posts- but after reading the law, I doubt my refund check approach would help. I see the dilemma...

I know. LOL Oh, and I could be all wet, too.

 

[AZ8]

I'm going to hate myself in the morning for getting into this, but...

I'm pretty sure the law in question is indeed part of Title 44 (44-1703), and it requires that the CC processing company must have a surety bond to cover the amount for transactions that have been charged but not completed. The cost of such a bond for the amount of money involved would be quite high. Thus no CC processor would be interested since that cost would negate any fees from the trancation that AGFD would pay. If I recall the bond would cost 5% of the total money taken in.

Thanks for that. Still a little grey. It’s interesting, because I recently painted my house. They required half payment before proceeding. I used a credit card. When I changed my HVAC, a down payment was required to start the job, again with a credit card. According to the way that’s written, they can’t collect any monies until the job is done. These are just off the top of my head. It‘d be a heck of coincidence both these bonded companies acquired a surety bond.

Anyways, thanks again for the reference. I’m sure you’re correct with this being the law in question. Appreciate it.

 

[OutdoorWriter]

After a bit more reading, that section seems to apply to a different type of credit entity. So 14-1703 might not be relevant.

 

[AZ8]

I’m telling you....it’s akin to searching for a unicorn. Strange law....lol

 

[OutdoorWriter]

Thanks for that. Still a little grey. It’s interesting, because I recently painted my house. They required half payment before proceeding. I used a credit card. When I changed my HVAC, a down payment was required to start the job, again with a credit card. According to the way that’s written, they can’t collect any monies until the job is done. These are just off the top of my head. It‘d be a heck of coincidence both these bonded companies acquired a surety bond.

Anyways, thanks again for the reference. I’m sure you’re correct with this being the law in question. Appreciate it.

Whole different lake full of fish. Now correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe BONDED companies already have surety BONDS.

 

[HikeHunt61]

Whole different lake full of fish. Now correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe BONDED companies already have surety BONDS.

And in that line of thinking, you would have to think that the state government would be backed by.... the state government!

 

[AZ8]

Whole different lake full of fish. Now correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe BONDED companies already have surety BONDS.

I don’t know. Not a business owner.

 

[OutdoorWriter]

I don’t know. Not a business owner.

 

[WapitiBob]

The person I talked to was the one running the cards. If it was a state law and not the processor I presume she would have said so.

In WY the application appears to be a completed transaction with a 2.3% cc fee charged by the processor. The processor was charging $0.10 per refund as well, at the time the dept added those charges to the application process.

 

[HikeHunt61]

After a few pings to AZ G&F, I got a response on what the reason is for the two-stage credit card process. The person I talked was a very nice guy, very helpful and seemed to be "in charge" of that process. It's not a surety bond or anything like that. It's as simple as many folks complained about paying all the money up front. He also stated they were aware of the consternation of hunters on the other side of the argument (please charge up front folks, like me). Although nothing is guaranteed at this point, they were looking at the option of letting hunters provide two credit cards, primary and back-up. I suggested they simply allow an option to pay upfront, and they could even charge a small fee to cover any administrative costs. He liked that and said they would consider it as well. I was sure pleased they got back with me!

 

[OutdoorWriter]

Glad you got the answer.

 

[AZ8]

After a few pings to AZ G&F, I got a response on what the reason is for the two-stage credit card process. The person I talked was a very nice guy, very helpful and seemed to be "in charge" of that process. It's not a surety bond or anything like that. It's as simple as many folks complained about paying all the money up front. He also stated they were aware of the consternation of hunters on the other side of the argument (please charge up front folks, like me). Although nothing is guaranteed at this point, they were looking at the option of letting hunters provide two credit cards, primary and back-up. I suggested they simply allow an option to pay upfront, and they could even charge a small fee to cover any administrative costs. He liked that and said they would consider it as well. I was sure pleased they got back with me!

So if the person you talked to is correct and sincere, then this whole “it’s against state law” argument repeated ad nauseam for years by many guys on all the various hunting boards, is total BS.

As I suspected.

Adding a voluntary option to pay up front is a great idea! Hope it comes to fruition.

 

[fullcry]

On Friday I talked to several different people
Looking to change my credit card to a secondary card.
It took 3 people to figure out the only place in the system were you can change your card that is on file.
Very ,Very nice people.
Interesting they said rumor was they were going to make big changes to their application system by next year.Hopefully to make things much easier to navigate and linked to the portal system.
Which are evidently two total different systems
Managed by two different entities.

 

[CatfishKev]

Big changes coming soon! (The last 3 years)

 

[AZNATIVE98]

Fall draw seems to be going smoother, I've put in 12 apps so far and they all show up in portal.

 

[WapitiBob]

They had a get together a cpl weekends ago to discuss their it dept. We’ll see how it goes.