Info Desire: AZ G&F Cannot Charge CC Upfront For Tags

[bigorange]

Maybe a question for a commissioners meeting? “Good question. We’ll get back to you on that.”

[TylerDurden]

2 minutes ago, wish2hunt said:

I bet they will not respond.

I bet they will "process" his response! 😂

[TylerDurden]

Just now, bigorange said:

Maybe a question for a commissioners meeting? “Good question. We’ll get back to you on that.”

They can use the White House Press Secretary line "I'll circle back" 

[bigorange]

1 minute ago, TylerDurden said:

They can use the White House Press Secretary line "I'll circle back" 

We had a similar response to some personnel Q&A sessions about new policies at work. “We know this is important to you. We’ll circle back with answers when we have them.” 😂

[TylerDurden]

2 minutes ago, bigorange said:

We had a similar response to some personnel Q&A sessions about new policies at work. “We know this is important to you. We’ll circle back with answers when we have them.” 😂

She ruined that line! haha

[MattMan]

If you want a real response, send it to the commission in writing, and request the commission to investigate as an agenda item why fees aren’t charged up front.  If it’s a state law, request that they pursue legislation for an exemption.  After your letter is received, follow up at meetings with public comments requesting an update or status on the agenda item.  Send the same letter to the Director.  
 

Public comments presented can’t be discussed or commented on at the same meeting.  3 minutes, tops.  Know the meeting rules, it helps.  
 

If it’s really in statute, they’ll respond ARS xx-xxxx, if it’s code, they’ll respond it’s AAC xx-xxxx, etc.  Any of them can be exempted for the draw by legislation, code, or rule.  
 

It’s not rocket science.  

[HuntHike61]

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!

[MULEPACKHUNTER]

100 percent its what was mentioned above, tag sales would drop dramatically if people had to pay in advance. Loss of revenue for game and fish but on our side the odds would be better to draw. 

[HuntHike61]

11 hours ago, MULEPACKHUNTER said:

100 percent its what was mentioned above, tag sales would drop dramatically if people had to pay in advance. Loss of revenue for game and fish but on our side the odds would be better to draw. 

Agreed- thus the "option" to do it, or the second CC to reduce the angst seem like good options...

[stanley]

11 hours ago, MULEPACKHUNTER said:

100 percent its what was mentioned above, tag sales would drop dramatically if people had to pay in advance. Loss of revenue for game and fish but on our side the odds would be better to draw. 

I'm not following your reasoning regarding tag sales dropping dramatically??   I'm thinking that whether they charge up front (and refund those not drawn) or not, that they still will basically allocate/sell the same number of tags each year.

[trophyseeker]

7 minutes ago, stanley said:

I'm not following your reasoning regarding tag sales dropping dramatically??   I'm thinking that whether they charge up front (and refund those not drawn) or not, that they still will basically allocate/sell the same number of tags each year.

May not lose the tag sales because they are all doled out anyway, but they might lose a few dollars in regards to the application fees. 

[stanley]

41 minutes ago, trophyseeker said:

May not lose the tag sales because they are all doled out anyway, but they might lose a few dollars in regards to the application fees. 

Don't disagree with you there.  I was specifically questioning how tag sales would be impacted.

[trophyseeker]

8 minutes ago, stanley said:

Don't disagree with you there.  I was specifically questioning how tag sales would be impacted.

They wouldn't be. 

[AZtroutman]

I think everyone knew or assumed mulepackhunter was saying application numbers would drop dramatically. 

[stanley]

3 minutes ago, AZtroutman said:

I think everyone knew or assumed mulepackhunter was saying application numbers would drop dramatically. 

For sure, I suspect that application numbers would drop.  Likely significantly for non-residents.

There has been lots of debate on this topic over the years.  I'm very curious who "seemed to be in charge" really was, and whether their info is accurate.   Only asking because the word on not charging up front previously was attributed to the reason(s) mentioned before (laws/rules, as opposed to an administrative decision by the G&F...).