The Trail Cam Celebration

[twigsnapper]

There is a ton of info here:

 

https://wildlife.utah.gov/utah-expo-permits-faq.html

 

 

I should have added to my reply above:

 

In reality, the odds for the proposed raffle(s) are much like the regular draw in that someone with one bonus point is competing with others who have many more for any specific hunt, including those who have 10 points or more. The only difference is everyone pays the same application fee each year while those want more "points" in the raffle(s) will have to fork over more money in application fees, thus adding the revenue for "education."

 

Also, I spent two hours yesterday going through related threads on MM to ferret out some of the details of the "Utah model." I'll start a new thread here when I get more time later today or tomorrow.

[AZkiller]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The argument could be made that offering tags for $5 per chance instead of $13 is more supportive of the North American Model.

You could argue that, but you would be lying to yourself.

 

If 300 tags are given to the raffle and tickets are sold for $10 and a 10 ticket per person limit were imposed then that would mean if someone were to max out on all of the rafffles it would cost him $30k. For his investment he would have 3000x more chance of drawing a tag than someone who bought a single ticket. That is the definition of disparity.

 

Even for a single hunt anyone can purchase 10x more opportunity than another for $90 more investment.

 

This is exactly my concern with these systems. They are built to exploit economic disparity among sportsmen. So will anyone please for crying out loud tell me why it HAS to be tags. Why is that the only option a certain group of people will advocate for?

Your math is wrong. That's not how odds work. I thought you were the odds guy

My point isnt that your odds would be better, my point is that offering a chance at a tag for $5 makes it more accessible for some people than having to pay $13. Flatlander keeps arguing that the North American model is at being violated beacuase of the proposed raffle tags but its not. The North American Model doesnt say anything about keeping draw odds at a particular level. Auctioning tags is a different argument but a raffle is no different than a lottery tag through a normal draw system.

I was talking about Andrew's math

If the math is wrong feel free to fix it. I put it right there for everyone to see and understand.

 

If you do it will be the first meaningful contribution you have ever made to this site. Would be a refreshing change from your vague posts and hiding behind someone elses ideas.

Don't post drunk.. Let's play nice. Odds are 3% vs .3% you won't be able to buy 3000 tickets. I would have no problem however with someone wanting to put 30k into the g&f for this. Also I don't hate the rich. Now get back on that hog!

1. Never been drunk in my life, so guess you will have to take your own advice.

 

2. If someone buys 10 tickets for 300 different raffles that = 3,000 tickets. Thats 2,999 more than a person who only buys one.

 

3. The difference between a draw and what is being proposed here

 

a) In a draw each applicant is allowed to purchase one entry.

 

b ) In a draw each applicant is only allowed to select a set number of choices and cannot apply for each hunt separately for an additional fee.

 

This is clearly not a draw and the differences are plain and apparent. If you think its the same you are either unwilling or unable to look at it plainly and rationally. Either way I cannot help you and no one new is reading this so I am done wasting my breath and my math.

 

It seems the point of the of the pro tag crowd is that if people want to spend money on tags just let them. If thats the case lets just auction every tag in the state one at a time. That would certainly raise the most money.

I don't want to auction all the tags. I don't want to auction ANY tags. I DO WANT TO CONTINUE TO BE ABLE TO HUNT! This is what the money is going to help continue. The stap idea, tag fee increase, special hunt are all good ideas. The commission has ruled against ANY cost increase. This is what we have. Let's do our best to keep them in check and continue to enjoy our privilege while we can. How did the pitch to the commits go with your generous offer to run a draw odds web page for free? I think that was a fantastic idea. What ever came of that conversation?

[Flatlander]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The argument could be made that offering tags for $5 per chance instead of $13 is more supportive of the North American Model.

You could argue that, but you would be lying to yourself.

 

If 300 tags are given to the raffle and tickets are sold for $10 and a 10 ticket per person limit were imposed then that would mean if someone were to max out on all of the rafffles it would cost him $30k. For his investment he would have 3000x more chance of drawing a tag than someone who bought a single ticket. That is the definition of disparity.

 

Even for a single hunt anyone can purchase 10x more opportunity than another for $90 more investment.

 

This is exactly my concern with these systems. They are built to exploit economic disparity among sportsmen. So will anyone please for crying out loud tell me why it HAS to be tags. Why is that the only option a certain group of people will advocate for?

Your math is wrong. That's not how odds work. I thought you were the odds guy

My point isnt that your odds would be better, my point is that offering a chance at a tag for $5 makes it more accessible for some people than having to pay $13. Flatlander keeps arguing that the North American model is at being violated beacuase of the proposed raffle tags but its not. The North American Model doesnt say anything about keeping draw odds at a particular level. Auctioning tags is a different argument but a raffle is no different than a lottery tag through a normal draw system.

I was talking about Andrew's math

If the math is wrong feel free to fix it. I put it right there for everyone to see and understand.

 

If you do it will be the first meaningful contribution you have ever made to this site. Would be a refreshing change from your vague posts and hiding behind someone elses ideas.

Don't post drunk.. Let's play nice. Odds are 3% vs .3% you won't be able to buy 3000 tickets. I would have no problem however with someone wanting to put 30k into the g&f for this. Also I don't hate the rich. Now get back on that hog!

1. Never been drunk in my life, so guess you will have to take your own advice.

 

2. If someone buys 10 tickets for 300 different raffles that = 3,000 tickets. Thats 2,999 more than a person who only buys one.

 

3. The difference between a draw and what is being proposed here

 

a) In a draw each applicant is allowed to purchase one entry.

 

b ) In a draw each applicant is only allowed to select a set number of choices and cannot apply for each hunt separately for an additional fee.

 

This is clearly not a draw and the differences are plain and apparent. If you think its the same you are either unwilling or unable to look at it plainly and rationally. Either way I cannot help you and no one new is reading this so I am done wasting my breath and my math.

 

It seems the point of the of the pro tag crowd is that if people want to spend money on tags just let them. If thats the case lets just auction every tag in the state one at a time. That would certainly raise the most money.

I don't want to auction all the tags. I don't want to auction ANY tags. I DO WANT TO CONTINUE TO BE ABLE TO HUNT! This is what the money is going to help continue. The stap idea, tag fee increase, special hunt are all good ideas. The commission has ruled against ANY cost increase. This is what we have. Let's do our best to keep them in check and continue to enjoy our privilege while we can. How did the pitch to the commits go with your generous offer to run a draw odds web page for free? I think that was a fantastic idea. What ever came of that conversation?

Not one person from CAPAZ (which is who we pitched it to, when they were asking for ANY AND ALL ideas) ever followed up beyond saying oh that might be a good idea in the room that night. I have moved on to different ideas.

 

This is my frustration. That group ONLY wants to talk about a tag auction or raffle.

[AZkiller]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The argument could be made that offering tags for $5 per chance instead of $13 is more supportive of the North American Model.

You could argue that, but you would be lying to yourself.

 

If 300 tags are given to the raffle and tickets are sold for $10 and a 10 ticket per person limit were imposed then that would mean if someone were to max out on all of the rafffles it would cost him $30k. For his investment he would have 3000x more chance of drawing a tag than someone who bought a single ticket. That is the definition of disparity.

 

Even for a single hunt anyone can purchase 10x more opportunity than another for $90 more investment.

 

This is exactly my concern with these systems. They are built to exploit economic disparity among sportsmen. So will anyone please for crying out loud tell me why it HAS to be tags. Why is that the only option a certain group of people will advocate for?

Your math is wrong. That's not how odds work. I thought you were the odds guy

My point isnt that your odds would be better, my point is that offering a chance at a tag for $5 makes it more accessible for some people than having to pay $13. Flatlander keeps arguing that the North American model is at being violated beacuase of the proposed raffle tags but its not. The North American Model doesnt say anything about keeping draw odds at a particular level. Auctioning tags is a different argument but a raffle is no different than a lottery tag through a normal draw system.

I was talking about Andrew's math

If the math is wrong feel free to fix it. I put it right there for everyone to see and understand.

 

If you do it will be the first meaningful contribution you have ever made to this site. Would be a refreshing change from your vague posts and hiding behind someone elses ideas.

Don't post drunk.. Let's play nice. Odds are 3% vs .3% you won't be able to buy 3000 tickets. I would have no problem however with someone wanting to put 30k into the g&f for this. Also I don't hate the rich. Now get back on that hog!

1. Never been drunk in my life, so guess you will have to take your own advice.

 

2. If someone buys 10 tickets for 300 different raffles that = 3,000 tickets. Thats 2,999 more than a person who only buys one.

 

3. The difference between a draw and what is being proposed here

 

a) In a draw each applicant is allowed to purchase one entry.

 

b ) In a draw each applicant is only allowed to select a set number of choices and cannot apply for each hunt separately for an additional fee.

 

This is clearly not a draw and the differences are plain and apparent. If you think its the same you are either unwilling or unable to look at it plainly and rationally. Either way I cannot help you and no one new is reading this so I am done wasting my breath and my math.

 

It seems the point of the of the pro tag crowd is that if people want to spend money on tags just let them. If thats the case lets just auction every tag in the state one at a time. That would certainly raise the most money.

I don't want to auction all the tags. I don't want to auction ANY tags. I DO WANT TO CONTINUE TO BE ABLE TO HUNT! This is what the money is going to help continue. The stap idea, tag fee increase, special hunt are all good ideas. The commission has ruled against ANY cost increase. This is what we have. Let's do our best to keep them in check and continue to enjoy our privilege while we can. How did the pitch to the commits go with your generous offer to run a draw odds web page for free? I think that was a fantastic idea. What ever came of that conversation?

Not one person from CAPAZ (which is who we pitched it to, when they were asking for ANY AND ALL ideas) ever followed up beyond saying oh that might be a good idea in the room that night. I have moved on to different ideas.

 

This is my frustration. That group ONLY wants to talk about a tag auction or raffle.

Oh so YOU didn't contact the coming with your proposal and you're upset that people did propose things that you disagree with. I see

[trophyseeker]

There is a ton of info here:

 

https://wildlife.utah.gov/utah-expo-permits-faq.html

 

 

Thank you. I had found that yesterday as well but was also looking for some of the nuances that aren't covered in that. Stay tuned.

[Flatlander]

Well first off please stop equating raffle/auction tags with the only way to protect hunting. This is a false equation and In no way accurately reflects the current condition of our state. This is precisely the line of thinking that Pete puts forth as fact and wants everyone to buy into. But it simply is not true. There are a number of ways that education can be funded however only one is being proposed by CAPAZ to the commission. Now to explain what I personally have done (following which I would encourage you to similarly note your your personal contributions to the issue).

 

I am not sure who you mean by the commits or the coming. But here are the three main groups that it could refer to:

 

- The board of CAPAZ. I have attended two of their town hall meetings, emailed them a list of more than a dozen suggestions, emailed privately and discussed privately with several my thoughts and ideas. These town hall meetings were billed as open forums where they wanted to share their ideas and gather any additional ideas of how the money could be raised. I gladly provided my input and suggestions. Because Pete and CAPAZ have the commissions eat it would have been best for all of us if their intention truly was to share ALL ideas presented. Instead, when they had the opportunity to present to the commission at the Kingman workshop they took the opportunity to advance their tag agenda. This is the basis for my concerns about CAPAZ. Once seeing that these efforts were futile I decided to engage in other avenues. But of course you know this because you were at one of those meetings.

 

- The G&F commission made up of 5 commissioners. I have emailed each of them multiple times myself with a number of ideas and concerns about what has been proposed by others. We provided the commission with the same presentation that we shared with CAPAZ, it was prepared by another sportsmen with input by a couple more, I cannot take credit for that work. I attended the commission meeting last Friday and spoke to voice my concerns about the issue and shared my thoughts on a good path forward.

 

- The committee that the commissioners voted to create last Friday who will study the options and provide a recommendation on the best option. This committee I believe is to be made up of 7 members, one appointed by each commissioner or one from the area that each commissioners represent (which of these was not totally clear to me) and two at large members. Of course I cannot engage this committee yet because it does not exist yet. But you better believe when that committee is appointed (I believe this is to happen July 1) I will be sharing my thoughts with them. I have already been in touch with the commissioners to make recommendations who I believe would be good representatives for that committee and have emailed many of my fellow sportsmen encouraging them to do the same.

 

So kindly, please refrain from implying that I am an entitled do-nothing crying about what others do or do not say, speak or propose. I have been engaged in this effort daily for weeks and will continue to do so until final action is taken.

 

I have also emailed Jay Scott to find out why no opposing view points have been presented on his podcast. He was polite but I am sure everyone can imagine the response.

[AZkiller]

Commish sorry my phone corrects incomplete words.

 

I have......

 

- contacted the Commissioners and let them know I support the CAPAZ proposal.

 

- Donated money to CAPAZ

 

- Joined the ADA as a sustaining member

 

- Joined the AZDBSS

 

- Offered my time to the CAPAZ and AZDBSS for anything I can help with

[twigsnapper]

Flatlander - did you ask the commissioners to be considered as one of the committee members? I think you would add some good insight/perspective to that committee.

[Flatlander]

Flatlander - did you ask the commissioners to be considered as one of the committee members? I think you would add some good insight to that committee.

Maybe you and AZKiller should email the commissioners and tell them that.

 

Andrew Gillett

[twigsnapper]

Will do if you have the time and are willing to do it.

 

 

Flatlander - did you ask the commissioners to be considered as one of the committee members? I think you would add some good insight to that committee.

Maybe you and AZKiller should email the commissioners and tell them that.

 

Andrew Gillett

[Flatlander]

I doubt that I would ever be selected by the commission knowing that many of them already have allegiances and ties to groups and although I am an AES member I am not necessarily endorsed by them.

 

But by all means, feel free to let them know you support the idea. It cant hurt.

[trophyseeker]

One observation:

 

I watched the live broadcast of last week's commission meeting and one thing that stood out was when Comm. Davis made it a point to tell everyone that any increase in license costs at this time is completely off the table. So it seems any proposal that puts that forth, including a heritage/conservation/education stamp which in effect is a license increase, will get very short consideration.

 

I don't know this to be fact, but I'm guessing they don't want to mandate this sort of increase for everyone who buys a license/tag. Instead, they are leaning toward the raffle idea because people have the choice to spend their money or not and could get something valuable in return.

[brian390]

One observation:

 

I watched the live broadcast of last week's commission meeting and one thing that stood out was when Comm. Davis made it a point to tell everyone that any increase in license costs at this time is completely off the table. So it seems any proposal that puts that forth, including a heritage/conservation/education stamp which in effect is a license increase, will get very short consideration.

 

I don't know this to be fact, but I'm guessing they don't want to mandate this sort of increase for everyone who buys a license/tag. Instead, they are leaning toward the raffle idea because people have the choice to spend their money or not and could get something valuable in return.

 

So they would rather have hunters chase tags that they will never get? By charging EVERYONE a small fee to apply with no loss in odds to get a tag sounds more reasonable and fair. The few on here that are saying oh we will make these raffles equal odds for everyone that enters them. For example someone mentioned like we will limit it to like 100 or whatever raffle tags sold per hunt. If you do that you're going to have to charge an OUTRAGEOUS amount for one entry into the raffle to get your so called "education" funds. So the rich would only be able to afford to enter this raffle.

 

If they go with not equal chances and say oh it's cheap 1 ticket for 5 bucks or 5 tickets for 20 bucks. If they go this route than the rich guy gets the tag because he will out spend you. So no matter what the average hunter and majority are screwed. You can come back with your statistics and math but this is just how raffles work when they're trying to get max funds for "education."

 

So if they set aside the best tags for the rich with this raffle proposal, than they're going to shoot themselves in the foot like I have said. They will lose more support for hunting from the average hunter which is the majority, and make their whole idea of funding "education" pointless. The average hunters aren't going to support the few rich to hunt when they can't. It's a slippery slope that you guys are trying to head down and it's going to back fire on you. Then the only hunting that you will be doing is in your imagination.

[Flatlander]

License / tag increase is off the table for the committee. Davis motion took that off the table.

[Nefarious Red]

I doubt that I would ever be selected by the commission knowing that many of them already have allegiances and ties to groups and although I am an AES member I am not necessarily endorsed by them.

But by all means, feel free to let them know you support the idea. It cant hurt.

That's cool that you're a member of AES. They do a lot of good work for wildlife. You should speak with the President of the Arizona Elk Society and get his thoughts on Conserve and Protect Arizona.