Proposed Second Buck Tag: Admitted Money Grab

[Yoder]

LOL. I gave up 'work on it' years ago in favor of just admitting I'm an asshole...

I wear my asshole badge with pride.

[Williamsmith]

I am not sure which idea you're talking about. If you're talking about the idea of selling a second tag for $100 or whatever...meh...doesn't bother me. But I will also tell you that, like anything else the govt does, the approach is fundamentally flawed, IMHO. I think it should work this way:

0). Commission decides how many kills it wants in a year, based on whatever criteria it uses (presumably based on honest game management).
1). Based on historical "kill rates" (tags resulting in a kill), it determines how many tags to sell.
2). Commission runs an auction and sells tags to the highest bidders, rather than for a fixed amount.
3). One tag, one kill.
4). Buy as many tags as you like at the auction. But each tag has an expiration date.
5). If "the little guy" can't afford the GOING RATE, as determined by auction prices, well, too bad, so sad. We live in a capitalist society.

Fundamentally, that's how I think it should work. I realize that people opposed to hunting will try to game that system, buy up tags and prevent people from hunting. So there is a fix for that.

0). Tags expire.
1). Tags not resulting in a registered kill by their expiration date MAY go back on the market via auction.
2). Weekly (or whatever) progress toward the target kill number is monitored.
3). If progress is "slow" - put an appropriate amount of expired tags back up to auction.
4). At the end of the "regular season" - if we're below the "target kill number", run a "second-chance" season via lottery.
5). If you didn't win a regular season tag via auction, you can buy one second-chance lottery entry at the lowest auction price.
6). Conduct a random drawing - select the number of second chance entries needed to reach the desired kill number.

Overall - this preserves the notion of sound game management principles, maximizes revenue generation, provides hunting opportunities to those who value them the most (determined by how much they're willing to pay for it), and minimizes the opportunity for anti-hunting assholes to keep others from hunting.

Yes - you may end up in a situation where people who want to hunt can't afford to. Well, too bad. There's a lot of things I'd like to do that I can't afford to. The whole purpose of money is to allocate limited resources to those willing to pay for them. If some guy is willing to pay $500 (or whatever) to go kill a deer, and some other guy can't afford more than $50, well, that's how it goes. If the $50 guy wants it bad enough, he can save up, make sacrifices, take a second job, go rob a liquor store, or whatever. You can argue that the $50 guy will say "fuck it" - and go kill a deer illegally. Sure he can. Just like he can do right now.

ThatÂ’s a very interesting proposal but it violates the Public Trust Doctrine and fails to preserve the accessibility to the resources by all beneficiaries. The Pa Game Commission is a trustee, not a possessor of the Commonwealths wildlife and therefore cannot auction off opportunity to the highest bidders. IMHO.

[free]

ThatÂ’s a very interesting proposal but it violates the Public Trust Doctrine and fails to preserve the accessibility to the resources by all beneficiaries. The Pa Game Commission is a trustee, not a possessor of the Commonwealths wildlife and therefore cannot auction off opportunity to the highest bidders. IMHO.

So change the law.

[free]

I was going for "Work on it!" in response to you admitting your imperfection (:

Fair enough (:

[Sandcut]

ThatÂ’s a very interesting proposal but it violates the Public Trust Doctrine and fails to preserve the accessibility to the resources by all beneficiaries. The Pa Game Commission is a trustee, not a possessor of the Commonwealths wildlife and therefore cannot auction off opportunity to the highest bidders. IMHO.

I've disagreed with just about everything that you've said in this thread, but this was a good post.

Free's idea off auctioning off hunting licenses is worse than the idea than importing pigs (and that's a friggen awful idea). Game in PA is part of the "common wealth". Setting limits on who may or may not enter into the use of that common wealth based on whether or not they can afford the high entry fee is a total violation of the trust bestowed onto PGC for managing the game. It could be argued that offering high priced, second buck tags is the same, but I don't see it that way. All can hunt for the same price. All can take additional tags (doe, turkey) for additional money. An additional buck tag is the same. It's just that since the population of legal bucks is lower, the price to take a second one increases in order to keep the pressure to buy a second license down.

I know I say this every year, but I'll say it again. The amount of hunting opportunity in PA vs. the cost to hunt (as a resident) is an extremely good value based on the total amount of hunting opportunities available to the hunter. If you choose not to benefit from using your license to its fullest extent, that is not the fault of PGC.

[P89]

Meh, everything the PGC & DCNR does is self serving. They are the two most dangerous agencies in PA. I could really get into it but most of you have heard the rant before. I went as far as to NOT hunt PA for the last couple of years. I'm fortunate to be nestled in between NY & OH which both have ample opportunity and semi-auto hunting. I feel for the guys who enjoy hunting but don't have another choice because of location.

[free]

Meh, everything the PGC & DCNR does is self serving.

It's government.

[Williamsmith]

I've disagreed with just about everything that you've said in this thread, but this was a good post.

Free's idea off auctioning off hunting licenses is worse than the idea than importing pigs (and that's a friggen awful idea). Game in PA is part of the "common wealth". Setting limits on who may or may not enter into the use of that common wealth based on whether or not they can afford the high entry fee is a total violation of the trust bestowed onto PGC for managing the game. It could be argued that offering high priced, second buck tags is the same, but I don't see it that way. All can hunt for the same price. All can take additional tags (doe, turkey) for additional money. An additional buck tag is the same. It's just that since the population of legal bucks is lower, the price to take a second one increases in order to keep the pressure to buy a second license down.

I know I say this every year, but I'll say it again. The amount of hunting opportunity in PA vs. the cost to hunt (as a resident) is an extremely good value based on the total amount of hunting opportunities available to the hunter. If you choose not to benefit from using your license to its fullest extent, that is not the fault of PGC.

At $100-$150 per ...that will keep the pressure down significantly to where I am skeptical they can sell 10,000. Perhaps I might have chewed and swallowed easier had the price of the permit not seemed to have been determined more by the amount the Game Commission estimates it will need to stave off inflation. Something like $75.

And I can’t keep from wondering what other proposals might be in the wings ....like a similar permit for black bear as the population is growing and nuisance bear are on the rise, or wild turkey....they are as plentiful as robins. I have difficulty when the regulatory board views bumper crop wildlife as cash cows. Kind of detracts from the role of trustee, don’t you think?

Does anyone know what the status of the Auditor Generals investigation of the Game Commission is? There was talk about the over burden on the budget due to excessive ownership of vehicles and their maintenance compared to staffing. As I understood it, the audit was a required prerequisite to consideration in the House to a significant license fee increases.

[free]

I have difficulty when the regulatory board views bumper crop wildlife as cash cows.

So.......maybe I'm just hard-headed here....but the govt is supposed to manage the resource for the benefit of all citizens, right?

So......what about non-hunters? What's their benefit here? Oh, sure, one can argue they just become hunters. But that's disingenuous.

Could it be that using a "bumper crop of wildlife" to raise opportunistic revenue that is then available for whatever purpose the govt might use it for "whatever" providing a benefit to those who otherwise wouldn't get one?

Besides which....it certainly isn't the first time the government uses revenue collected from use of one resource (turnpike, for example) for the benefit of others who don't use that resource (drivers using roads funded by the turnpike who don't use the turnpike).

But once again - your real complaint seems to be about the money involved.

[Williamsmith]

So.......maybe I'm just hard-headed here....but the govt is supposed to manage the resource for the benefit of all citizens, right?

So......what about non-hunters? What's their benefit here? Oh, sure, one can argue they just become hunters. But that's disingenuous.

Could it be that using a "bumper crop of wildlife" to raise opportunistic revenue that is then available for whatever purpose the govt might use it for "whatever" providing a benefit to those who otherwise wouldn't get one?

Besides which....it certainly isn't the first time the government uses revenue collected from use of one resource (turnpike, for example) for the benefit of others who don't use that resource (drivers using roads funded by the turnpike who don't use the turnpike).

But once again - your real complaint seems to be about the money involved.

The Game Commission also is a trustee for non Game species....tweety birds for bird watchers, habitat enhancement for all wildlife and in general anything that encompasses all wild birds and mammals. They are involved in conservation and education as well as regulatory and enforcement functions.

Once again, my main complaint is not about money. Money is the evidence which proves my main complaint has validity.