Proposed Second Buck Tag: Admitted Money Grab

[free]

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.

But none of that answer this question:

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?

Suppose a citizen doesn't use ANY of their "services". They're still supposed to receive a benefit as part of the "all". It's not unreasonable to take the position that revenue generation for the general fund meets that requirement.

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

I guess I missed it then. Can you succinctly state your complaint? Is it that you think the GC is NOT using game management principles to make its decisions?

[Qtrborecrazy]

And when greed sets in and prices rise, what then? What would be the maximum you would pay for that second buck? What will they offer next, unlimited does for 200?

[Williamsmith]

But none of that answer this question:

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?

Suppose a citizen doesn't use ANY of their "services". They're still supposed to receive a benefit as part of the "all". It's not unreasonable to take the position that revenue generation for the general fund meets that requirement.

I guess I missed it then. Can you succinctly state your complaint? Is it that you think the GC is NOT using game management principles to make its decisions?

I’ll try to be more clear. Any action by the Game Commission which tends to work against the general public’s accessibility by virtue of its high cost or lack of access will tend to disenfranchise the people whom are supposed to be the beneficiaries. This always results by indifference to conservation of wildlife resources and undermines the public trust. Poaching will increase as the general public views the resource as owned by a type of aristocracy. We already see this happening as the Commission is looked upon as more of an iron fisted bureaucracy than a partner for preservation of wildlife for future generations. This particular proposition does nothing to repair or maintain the proper relationship between trustee and beneficiaries and in my opinion undermines it. I am open minded enough to be convinced otherwise.

[free]

And when greed sets in and prices rise, what then? What would be the maximum you would pay for that second buck?

Are you addressing me?

It would depend mostly on my financial condition at the time most likely. But I tend to value buying experiences over buying physical stuff. I have no idea how much I would be willing to pay to go kill a deer, if that's what I wanted to do, but it is probably more than what many on here think that experience is "worth" to them. I doubt I would blink an eye if the price tag were under $500.

We paid a lot of money go to rafting down the Grand Canyon. We paid a lot of money because that's what it cost us. That's a resource that is supposed to be for "all" of us - but it certainly isn't priced that way. Should it be? Should pricing on raft trips down the Grand Canyon be set at a token amount, so that anyone who wants to go do it can afford to do so? Would that make sense? If you think it would, practically-speaking, how do you think that would work out?

[free]

I’ll try to be more clear. Any action by the Game Commission which tends to work against the general public’s accessibility by virtue of its high cost or lack of access will tend to disenfranchise the people whom are supposed to be the beneficiaries. This always results by indifference to conservation of wildlife resources and undermines the public trust. Poaching will increase as the general public views the resource as owned by a type of aristocracy. We already see this happening as the Commission is looked upon as more of an iron fisted bureaucracy than a partner for preservation of wildlife for future generations. This particular proposition does nothing to repair or maintain the proper relationship between trustee and beneficiaries and in my opinion undermines it. I am open minded enough to be convinced otherwise.

I see. Thank you for clarifying your position (seriously).

I guess.....it's just hard for me to understand it because I'm just at the opposite end of the spectrum in terms of faith in government. My starting position is that the people who run the government are in it simply to improve their own position in life and, given the opportunity to do so, they will gladly fuck the rest of us over in the process. Sure, there are exceptions - but they are few and far between and are generally powerless to fight the institutional momentum that works against the people govt is supposed to serve. So no, I don't even pretend to believe that entities like Game Commissions do anything more than provide the superficial appearance of serving the public, while privately pursuing their own agendas to the greatest extent they think they can get away with. That being the case, I'm not really surprised, shocked or particularly outraged when they perform exactly as expected.

[Williamsmith]

I see. Thank you for clarifying your position (seriously).

I guess.....it's just hard for me to understand it because I'm just at the opposite end of the spectrum in terms of faith in government. My starting position is that the people who run the government are in it simply to improve their own position in life and, given the opportunity to do so, they will gladly fuck the rest of us over in the process. Sure, there are exceptions - but they are few and far between and are generally powerless to fight the institutional momentum that works against the people govt is supposed to serve. So no, I don't even pretend to believe that entities like Game Commissions do anything more than provide the superficial appearance of serving the public, while privately pursuing their own agendas to the greatest extent they think they can get away with. That being the case, I'm not really surprised, shocked or particularly outraged when they perform exactly as expected.

Now that is exactly what I mean by being disenfranchised and indifferent. I get it.

[Sandcut]

But none of that answer this question:

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?

Suppose a citizen doesn't use ANY of their "services". They're still supposed to receive a benefit as part of the "all". It's not unreasonable to take the position that revenue generation for the general fund meets that requirement.

I guess I missed it then. Can you succinctly state your complaint? Is it that you think the GC is NOT using game management principles to make its decisions?

PGC isn't funded via the General Fund. They are predominantly funded through license fees (and to a smaller amount through Federal money raised by taxes on certain sporting goods). And to be a largely science-based agancy, we want to keep them this way and keep the caprice of the whims of the General Assembly away from the purse strings of game management. Otherwise you get non-hunters from urban areas making decisions about things they know nothing about. From your comments it appears that you may not know this as it sounds like you think PGC raising money
is just to fund "The Government" and not just its own requirements.

I will cease to support PGC's license fees when it rises to the level where it exceeds the combined cost of the beer, whiskey, steak and stogies that are consumed by the average deer hunter during the first weekend of buck season.

[free]

PGC isn't funded via the General Fund.

I wasn't suggesting PGC is funded by the General Fund. I was suggesting that money it raises could CONTRIBUTE to the General Fund.

From your comments it appears that you may not know this as it sounds like you think PGC raising money is just to fund "The Government" and not just its own requirements.

Again, I was suggesting that it COULD, not necessarily that it does or even that it would. Hell, I know enough about govt to know that no agency wants to give revenue it generates to another agency or a general fund. It wants it for itself and itself only...and the more of it that it has, the better - as far as it is concerned. It would be a really uncommon occurrence for any govt agency to say, "Oh, no - we don't need that much. Here, you take some of this back. Please!" Year-end spending, anyone?

[CMP703006]

The only thing that really annoys me is "gentry" hunters who drive up from philly-burb land in their land rovers with all the 'gear' and shoot a deer... Which they take to the taxidermist and pay to have the head mounted (if it's impressive enough for their urban man-cave) and could give 2 shits about the meat or anything else... To the extent the new proposal hinders or helps those jackholes is all I care about, personally.

So I'm from the philly burbs and we drove up to deer camp in not a Range Rover (Toyota Sequoia) and I carried a bunch of "gear" ("expensive" gun, hand-me-down clothes) plus I shot a deer to take to the taxidermist and put in an office (not enough wall space in the man cave). Does that mean I fall under the "gentry hunter" category?

[KCJones]

Are you addressing me?

It would depend mostly on my financial condition at the time most likely. But I tend to value buying experiences over buying physical stuff. I have no idea how much I would be willing to pay to go kill a deer, if that's what I wanted to do, but it is probably more than what many on here think that experience is "worth" to them. I doubt I would blink an eye if the price tag were under $500.

We paid a lot of money go to rafting down the Grand Canyon. We paid a lot of money because that's what it cost us. That's a resource that is supposed to be for "all" of us - but it certainly isn't priced that way. Should it be? Should pricing on raft trips down the Grand Canyon be set at a token amount, so that anyone who wants to go do it can afford to do so? Would that make sense? If you think it would, practically-speaking, how do you think that would work out?

Groucho Marx famously said "I wouldn't join any club that would accept me as a member"

This is sorta the same. Supply and demand.

You make unique/interesting experiences free/cheap and then everyone does it. You end up waiting in line 3 hours and getting shuttled through a 'bulk' experience. You experience the 'wonder' of the grand canyon while shuffling along through a line with 27,000 other folks visiting that day. You go the Baltimore Aquarium and can't see the fucking fish because people are 9 deep in front of you. "Democratization" of experiences is overrated.

We're a capitalistic society. When the supply/demand curve is artificially disrupted, things get outta whack.

If scuba-diving was made free tomorrow, I'm quite sure Free would soon grow to hate waiting in line to get on the boat, being packed into the boat like sardines, clanking along the dive-site being jostled by the 10,000 others there doing it in cloudy water, then climing back on the crowded boat to sail back to shore and meander through the packed parking lot finding his vehicle to drive home in bumper-to-bumper traffic.

Personal example (speaking locally): I think the prices at Hershey Park are too low. They should raise them, then raise them again, then raise them some more until I can go there and not have to wait 3 hours to ride a roller-coaster. I'd rather do that once every couple years than go 6x a year and spend all day sweating through lines to ride 3 things. Mind you that's MY preference. I suspect Hershey Entertainment prices to maximize their profit, as well they should.

My take on buck licenses? Raise/Lower the rate until you sell -just- enough to hit the appropriate kill target for the year. No more no less. If that means only a few bourgeois hotshots from Philly can afford to hunt and the good ole boys are cut out... so be it. If that means deer are breeding like rabbits, overrunning farms and the state is practically giving licenses away, so be it. The market at work.

Or maybe I'm just a curmudgeon.