javihammer
Active Member
- Messages
- 135
Will be submitting to the Arizona Game Commission this morning. Seems like a no-brainer to me.
*****************************************************
RE: Proposal to Change Group Application Bonus Point Averaging
Hello Commissioner,
I attended a Commission Meeting earlier this year and was encouraged to write-up my proposal. Thank you for your consideration.
There have been some peripheral changes to the draw process over the years. Each of these changes is small on it's own but combine to open the door ever wider to bonus point abuse. Here are some of the changes I believe to have propagated bonus point banking abuse in Arizona.
? The 20% bonus point pass for people in the highest bonus point pools. This turned some units into de-facto preference point units and guarantees that people that fall into certain point pools will be drawn in a given year
? Draw applications via credit card. This allows people to apply on borrowed money rather than fronting the full cost of the tag like they used to. Cheap to submit applications for non-hunters.
? Online applications and hunting licenses. Allows tag services and third parties to submit applications for non-hunters, no signature or knowledge of the draw process is required.
? The ?bonus point only? option. This option allows a person to apply for a bonus point only, this is not only cheaper but allows an applicant to collect points without the risk of actually needing to be physically capable of going on the hunt.
? The ?sign the tag over to a youth? option. This provides an "out" for a non-hunting grandparent, mother or other individual that may have been used to up the average on a group application. For example: The father has two bonus points, Mother had 11. They applied together (group app has 7 points average) and drew a mid-grade early archery bull hunt. Mom (a non-hunter) signs the tag over to the son and Dad and son hunt that year and go into the drawing the next year with the same number of bonus points as this year.
? Reduced price youth licenses for non-resident and resident youth. Allows youth to collect up to seven bonus points for a species for less than the cost of one adult non-resident hunting license.
The problem with point banking
Although all hunters point bank to some degree, the real problem is when hunters use other hunters (usually non-hunters) to reserve their spot in line. Hunting tags in Arizona are generally not transferable but bonus points are somewhat transferable if someone with low points applies on a group application with someone with high points. There are several hunting units in Arizona (unit 18b is one) that allow some wealthy hunters a guaranteed tag every year as long as they have high bonus point co-applicant to apply with. This isn't fair to other hunters that have been on the sideline for a half dozen years or more waiting for their turn. I can see outfitting companies ?farming? youth co-applicants that can be used later to lock in tags for wealthy co-applicants. If an outfitter could build a large enough base of point donors, they could almost guarantee their own small tag allocation for a given hunt in some cases. This combined with private land leases could be a huge mess in the near future.
My simple solution to combat point banking abuse
I propose a cap be placed on how many points a group application can have based on the lowest point applicant. Under my proposal, the average on a group application should never be higher than 3 points more than the applicant with the fewest bonus points. Here are some examples.
Applicant A has 11 points, Applicant B has 2 points (he hunted last year and only has his hunter education and loyalty points). Under the current rules the application would have 13 points divided by two (6.5) rounded up to 7 points. The group application would have 7 points, enough to lock in a low to mid-grade bull tag in the 20% bonus pass for some hunts. A guaranteed tag for both guys in some cases.
Under my proposal the group application would have 5 points. Since applicant B has 2 points and the maximum benefit is 3, the total points on the group application is 5. This is probably insufficient to pull a bull tag in the bonus round for anything other than a limited opportunity or cow hunt. Applicant B is no longer guaranteed a tag every year. He might even allow his wife and kids to apply separately in the future in order maximize the value of their points. Or he may decide to pull them out of the draw completely. If they aren't actual hunters they probably aren't buying things that contribute to Pittman Robertson funds anyway.
Benefits of my proposal
o Everyone keeps their points, and points remain full value as long as they aren't being disproportionately shared on a group application
o Reduces the incentive for people and outfitters to apply non-hunters in the big game draw
o Ensures youth are put into the draw to hunt, not just as point donors for co-applicants
o Eliminates guaranteed tags for some hunts
o Spreads hunt opportunity more evenly thereby improving hunter retention
o Nips the point abuse problem in the butt early before it becomes a bigger problem later (or used as leverage for actual landowner tags in the future)
*****************************************************
RE: Proposal to Change Group Application Bonus Point Averaging
Hello Commissioner,
I attended a Commission Meeting earlier this year and was encouraged to write-up my proposal. Thank you for your consideration.
There have been some peripheral changes to the draw process over the years. Each of these changes is small on it's own but combine to open the door ever wider to bonus point abuse. Here are some of the changes I believe to have propagated bonus point banking abuse in Arizona.
? The 20% bonus point pass for people in the highest bonus point pools. This turned some units into de-facto preference point units and guarantees that people that fall into certain point pools will be drawn in a given year
? Draw applications via credit card. This allows people to apply on borrowed money rather than fronting the full cost of the tag like they used to. Cheap to submit applications for non-hunters.
? Online applications and hunting licenses. Allows tag services and third parties to submit applications for non-hunters, no signature or knowledge of the draw process is required.
? The ?bonus point only? option. This option allows a person to apply for a bonus point only, this is not only cheaper but allows an applicant to collect points without the risk of actually needing to be physically capable of going on the hunt.
? The ?sign the tag over to a youth? option. This provides an "out" for a non-hunting grandparent, mother or other individual that may have been used to up the average on a group application. For example: The father has two bonus points, Mother had 11. They applied together (group app has 7 points average) and drew a mid-grade early archery bull hunt. Mom (a non-hunter) signs the tag over to the son and Dad and son hunt that year and go into the drawing the next year with the same number of bonus points as this year.
? Reduced price youth licenses for non-resident and resident youth. Allows youth to collect up to seven bonus points for a species for less than the cost of one adult non-resident hunting license.
The problem with point banking
Although all hunters point bank to some degree, the real problem is when hunters use other hunters (usually non-hunters) to reserve their spot in line. Hunting tags in Arizona are generally not transferable but bonus points are somewhat transferable if someone with low points applies on a group application with someone with high points. There are several hunting units in Arizona (unit 18b is one) that allow some wealthy hunters a guaranteed tag every year as long as they have high bonus point co-applicant to apply with. This isn't fair to other hunters that have been on the sideline for a half dozen years or more waiting for their turn. I can see outfitting companies ?farming? youth co-applicants that can be used later to lock in tags for wealthy co-applicants. If an outfitter could build a large enough base of point donors, they could almost guarantee their own small tag allocation for a given hunt in some cases. This combined with private land leases could be a huge mess in the near future.
My simple solution to combat point banking abuse
I propose a cap be placed on how many points a group application can have based on the lowest point applicant. Under my proposal, the average on a group application should never be higher than 3 points more than the applicant with the fewest bonus points. Here are some examples.
Applicant A has 11 points, Applicant B has 2 points (he hunted last year and only has his hunter education and loyalty points). Under the current rules the application would have 13 points divided by two (6.5) rounded up to 7 points. The group application would have 7 points, enough to lock in a low to mid-grade bull tag in the 20% bonus pass for some hunts. A guaranteed tag for both guys in some cases.
Under my proposal the group application would have 5 points. Since applicant B has 2 points and the maximum benefit is 3, the total points on the group application is 5. This is probably insufficient to pull a bull tag in the bonus round for anything other than a limited opportunity or cow hunt. Applicant B is no longer guaranteed a tag every year. He might even allow his wife and kids to apply separately in the future in order maximize the value of their points. Or he may decide to pull them out of the draw completely. If they aren't actual hunters they probably aren't buying things that contribute to Pittman Robertson funds anyway.
Benefits of my proposal
o Everyone keeps their points, and points remain full value as long as they aren't being disproportionately shared on a group application
o Reduces the incentive for people and outfitters to apply non-hunters in the big game draw
o Ensures youth are put into the draw to hunt, not just as point donors for co-applicants
o Eliminates guaranteed tags for some hunts
o Spreads hunt opportunity more evenly thereby improving hunter retention
o Nips the point abuse problem in the butt early before it becomes a bigger problem later (or used as leverage for actual landowner tags in the future)
