Don,
I understand your two points and respect them. I agree ultimately, the responsibility falls on the applicant and honestly I don't think that the original poster denied responsibility. He did use the Nazi term but I think he did that metaphorically to illustrate his feeling that such a hard line need not be taken by the department. I must say I have no idea who the poster is and I myself have never been rejected, unlike yourself, so i have no axe to grind. However, I do like to call a spade a spade. I have no reason or motivation to protect the reputation of the Department. If there are things I feel can be improved then I will state them. I would like to bring up some points for discussion and would welcome any replies (preferably constructive ones...but hey it's the internet so i won't have high expectations).
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!
