Proposed Second Buck Tag: Admitted Money Grab

[free]

I wouldn’t be surprised if the success of archery hunters isn’t used to eventually phase out rifle hunting altogether in favor of shotguns and muzzleloaders only. Well, unless you could buy a special permit to hunt with a rifle ....say $200? Hey, the Commission needs the money.

Your complaint really seems to be about money, rather than an honest concern about game management. There seems to be a resentment that those with money can buy things not available to those without money.

[Williamsmith]

Your complaint really seems to be about money, rather than an honest concern about game management. There seems to be a resentment that those with money can buy things not available to those without money.

That would not be a fair characterization of my complaint. It ignores the points I made regarding the spirit of proper game management and the dangers of objectifying wildlife for the sake of revenue streams. Those without money to buy permits, licenses and pay fees.....hunt anyway, right?

[free]

Those without money to buy permits, licenses and pay fees.....hunt anyway, right?

I dunno. Do they? There are lots of things I don't do because I don't have the money to do them.

[Williamsmith]

I dunno. Do they? There are lots of things I don't do because I don't have the money to do them.

I assure you this isn’t a socio-economic or political complaint. What do you think of the idea?

[God's Country]

So what are these horrible reasons you speak of? Last year there were approximately 330,000 bucks taken out of 912,000 availible buck tags. Even if the success rate is 100% that's still only 3% of the overall total which is statistically insignificant given the amount of fluctuation in hunter success from year to year. Since the more realistical harvest would be closer to 3,000 bucks taken it has even less of an impact on the herd while theoretically providing an additional $1 million to the PGC. This would offset the approximate $1.5 million reduction in license sales over the past 10 years.

The problem is (as with doe harvests) most of the additional kills will be taken on a small percentage of available public land, further lowering the deer population for the average hunter. I've have been saying for years that hunting is going to become something only the affluent will be able to afford. It's getting there now. Further lowering deer populations on public land will hasten this eventuality. At that point all we need is a monarchy and we'll be full circle. Pretty damn close to that as well.

[pennlineman]

The next step will be an antlered stamp to be purchased on top of the general license. I'm against it. Time for government to step into the adult world. Mange the funds you have, prioritize your spending and stop doing things you can't afford.

[God's Country]

The next step will be an antlered stamp to be purchased on top of the general license. I'm against it. Time for government to step into the adult world. Mange the funds you have, prioritize your spending and stop doing things you can't afford.

That will happen the moment people stop demanding more from government. Good luck.

[free]

What do you think of the idea?

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.

[KCJones]

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 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.

I'm not a hunter... any more.

I'm in favor of/support hunting. I grew up hunting, in Missouri, on private land my family owns. No tags and BS. We freely let other folks (neighbors, locals, known to us) hunt our land too. I think semi-auto should be allowed, etc. We shot everything from deer to varmints to boar to turkey to quail. We definitely 'amortized' the cost of our firearms and ammo! Also hunted 'pests' to keep the land in balance. The one time I ever got shot was varmint/pest hunting (story told elsewhere). Processed and ate all the 'game' animals too (squirrel and rabbit are good, pass on the 'coon though...).

I choose not to hunt these days - not out of some moral or ethical imperative, but primarily because I don't have local family to go with, nor private land to hunt on without worrying about tags and wardens and unsafe idiots. I happily hunt when visiting 'back home'. The family/tradition/bonding experience was always the thing for me, though I do still like eating game.

Free's proposal makes a lot of sense to me. Good balance.

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.

[free]

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.

Doesn't PA have "wastage" laws regarding game? If not - that's an easy way to solve that problem.