javihammer
Active Member
- Messages
- 135
Has anyone wondered how record book animals consistently enter the book every year regardless of habitat conditions? Whether it is Arizona, Utah, New Mexico or Nevada, the bar seems to be raised every year. It makes you wonder if hunters are getting better at finding the best animals or if overall trophy quality is improving. The widespread proliferation of digital trail cams and the attack of wealth tags by auction and raffle groups seem to have started about the same time. People didn't begin relying on game cameras until about the early 2000s.
I would argue that 365x24 hour a day, night vision digital game cameras have made collecting data cheaper than ever. Game cameras have been increasingly used by Western guides and outfitters to locate the cream of the crop. Cameras allow guides to document trophy quality from year to year and make associations about travel routes and other animal behavior. The images the outiftters capture also serves as proof to market the data they collect. A close-up game camera picture of a monster is far more marketable than a fuzzy digscope pic, and much cheaper. Some outfitters actually play the role of general contractor acting as information broker for the governor tags and such. The smaller outfitters find the monsters and work out finders fees through the data broker. The data broker generally hires their in house pursuit team to surveil the animal and get it killed. The outside world (and most auction bidders) then think the "highly skilled" data broker is almost required in order to kill a great animal. Unlike 20 years ago, auction tag bidders can now see if there are monsters available before they drop the money to buy specific tags from year to year.
And here is how this ties into expo tags. MDF and SFW would love to have people think they are marketing geniuses. Nothing is further from the truth. They exploit standard economic principles. They use the political process and the innate and corrupt lure of money to take tags from the public hunters, the same people that have contributed and paid the "opportunity" cost of deferred gratification by limiting harvest over many decades. They then work to get their auction and raffle tags locked down by contract, adding language to ensure their allocation of tags is insulated from any change in overall tag numbers set by science by the DWR. The contracts also include hurdles (deliberate barriers to entry) to protect them from competition by other tag broker candidates. They then exploit the economic priciple of scarcity by immediately turning on the DWR by calling them idiots and such, demanding that public tags be reduced, thereby limiting supply. They also work to promote limited entry and premium pricing of certain public tags to begin indoctrinating the DIY crowd into the idea that premium hunts are something special they really cannot afford. They then engage in strategic partnerships with data brokers (thinly veiled as outfitters)to capture the data they can use to market their expo tags and prove the farce that overall animal quaility is actually improving as a result of their conservation efforts. This process only serves to self perpetuate and further reduce hunt opportunity from year to year for average hunters.
It would be much more difficult to market wealth tags without some proof that the quality of the tag justifies the expense. Game cameras are a cheap way to collect that data (probably the only way to collect it on a grand scale). If regular hunters petitioned the DWR to significantly restrict the use of trail cams, especially by guides, deserving average joe hunters would probably be able to recover some of their lost public tags. I believe the existing contracts require some level of marketing performance by the expo brokers, I think auction bidders would lower their bids if there was less data to justify the value of the tags. Once the monies generated for each tag goes down, a good case could be made that the brokers are not meeting the performance terms agreed in the contract and a good argument could be made to put them back in the public drawing. Utah hunters could start a petition to get this going immediately.
Just a thought, Utah hunters have tons of leverage to push back against this garbage. Once again, I am not advocating an outright ban on game cameras, just restrictions on the timing and by how they are being used commercially.
Ryan
I would argue that 365x24 hour a day, night vision digital game cameras have made collecting data cheaper than ever. Game cameras have been increasingly used by Western guides and outfitters to locate the cream of the crop. Cameras allow guides to document trophy quality from year to year and make associations about travel routes and other animal behavior. The images the outiftters capture also serves as proof to market the data they collect. A close-up game camera picture of a monster is far more marketable than a fuzzy digscope pic, and much cheaper. Some outfitters actually play the role of general contractor acting as information broker for the governor tags and such. The smaller outfitters find the monsters and work out finders fees through the data broker. The data broker generally hires their in house pursuit team to surveil the animal and get it killed. The outside world (and most auction bidders) then think the "highly skilled" data broker is almost required in order to kill a great animal. Unlike 20 years ago, auction tag bidders can now see if there are monsters available before they drop the money to buy specific tags from year to year.
And here is how this ties into expo tags. MDF and SFW would love to have people think they are marketing geniuses. Nothing is further from the truth. They exploit standard economic principles. They use the political process and the innate and corrupt lure of money to take tags from the public hunters, the same people that have contributed and paid the "opportunity" cost of deferred gratification by limiting harvest over many decades. They then work to get their auction and raffle tags locked down by contract, adding language to ensure their allocation of tags is insulated from any change in overall tag numbers set by science by the DWR. The contracts also include hurdles (deliberate barriers to entry) to protect them from competition by other tag broker candidates. They then exploit the economic priciple of scarcity by immediately turning on the DWR by calling them idiots and such, demanding that public tags be reduced, thereby limiting supply. They also work to promote limited entry and premium pricing of certain public tags to begin indoctrinating the DIY crowd into the idea that premium hunts are something special they really cannot afford. They then engage in strategic partnerships with data brokers (thinly veiled as outfitters)to capture the data they can use to market their expo tags and prove the farce that overall animal quaility is actually improving as a result of their conservation efforts. This process only serves to self perpetuate and further reduce hunt opportunity from year to year for average hunters.
It would be much more difficult to market wealth tags without some proof that the quality of the tag justifies the expense. Game cameras are a cheap way to collect that data (probably the only way to collect it on a grand scale). If regular hunters petitioned the DWR to significantly restrict the use of trail cams, especially by guides, deserving average joe hunters would probably be able to recover some of their lost public tags. I believe the existing contracts require some level of marketing performance by the expo brokers, I think auction bidders would lower their bids if there was less data to justify the value of the tags. Once the monies generated for each tag goes down, a good case could be made that the brokers are not meeting the performance terms agreed in the contract and a good argument could be made to put them back in the public drawing. Utah hunters could start a petition to get this going immediately.
Just a thought, Utah hunters have tons of leverage to push back against this garbage. Once again, I am not advocating an outright ban on game cameras, just restrictions on the timing and by how they are being used commercially.
Ryan
