# What if tags were transferable?



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

So discussion in another thread got me thinking about the concept that any big game tag acquired through purchase or draw, why not allow the owner of that tag to then transfer it via gift, sale, trade, whatever - to whomever they want? 

Tag are allocated on per unit basis for the purpose of managing herds. So each tag represents harvest of the animal. Biology is blind as to who pulls the trigger/releases the arrow. A hunter is a hunter.

So if there is no biological reason not to transfer the tag, it is only social. 

Here is my thought - 
It took you 19 years to draw that Henry Mountain deer tag. You can:
-Keep it and enjoy the hunt of a lifetime, get a great trophy for your wall, everything is cool.
-You can realize that your knees sure aren't what they used to, but you son/grandson now loves to hunt so you gift it to him for a graduation present and you serve as camp cook and share his hunt of a lifetime.
-Your son was your best hunting buddy and was killed in action saving his marine corps buddy in a battle. The thought of hunting without your son is too much, so you gift the tag to the buddy he saved as a way of connecting and dealing with the very difficult loss. 
-After being out of work for a year, you auction the tag for $100,000, to pay your mortgage and medical bills that have piled up.
-You're a non-hunter, and see this as a way to make some bank, so you keep putting in every year, knowing eventually you'll draw out and you can sell the tag for some serious cash. Beats driving to Wendover.

What does that matter to anyone how I use my tag?


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

Because you would soon see hunter Joe find out that he could sell his tag on the Henry Mountains for $200,000, or to the highest bidder. Even if you put into your proposal that he couldn't sell it the temptation would be three if someone offered it to him. Then you would have every person in the state putting in for tags just so that they could sell them on the open market, legal or not.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

GaryFish said:


> What does that matter to anyone how I use my tag?


Exactly...that is why this shouldn't be done. I believe this idea would open up a much larger can of worms than what has been described would happen with the point creep with the suggestion of allowing youth party hunting.

If tags are transferrable, I will be putting my parents, grandparents, and any other relative/person I can think of who would be eligible so that they could transfer the hunting tag they are not interested in to me.

To me, this idea is much worse than the youth "party hunting" idea.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

So is the only issue then with point creep?


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

As a business owner I would get to the point that I would pay the application fees for my employees. I would have them sign a guarantee that if they drew the tag it becomes mine and I split the profit with them to a certain extent. Once the game becomes 100% about money I will play the system to the fullest extent allowed by law. May even start some sort of license cooperative. I will call it the PFW. Proprietors for Fish and Wildlife.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

If you could sell your tag for cashola you will now have to compete with loads of non hunters in the draws

Gary your killing me!


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

Again, that takes no opportunity away. No reduction in tags. And you don't have to sell one if you draw. Its all up to you to do whatever you choose.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

GaryFish said:


> Again, that takes no opportunity away. No reduction in tags. And you don't have to sell one if you draw. Its all up to you to do whatever you choose.


You can't see if you could sell the tag for cash and those tags go for high dollar that you would see a significant increase in the non hunting city folks. It would be like buying a lottery tag!

Try competing in that draw. Think what kind of point creep that would create!

Its a bad idea!


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

I see exactly what you are saying. But I'm not quite sure it would play out that way. Here is why. 

Right now, a Henry Mountain deer tag, probably the most coveted tag in America, would sell at auction for what? $100,000? Why?

Now consider the lottery - Powerball for example - it has its every day players that buy tickets like clockwork. But it isn't until that pot tops $100 million that the non-players start showing up and dropping cash. I don't know why really because for most folks, a $2 million jack pot would change their life as much as $100 million. And Powerball tickets are only two bucks, with an immediate draw. 

Now back to the Henry Mountain deer tag. You are suggesting that non-hunters will spend $10/year, every year, for two decades, holding out that they'll get that tag and then could sell it? Sure, there might be a few that would do that. But in all reality, that isn't going to happen. 

The other thing, is if 20 of the 40 people that draw a Henry Mountain tag sell them, then the supply will go up to the point that the prices will drop. Only so many people are willing to drop $100,000 for a tag, and competition would actually bring those prices down, which would diminish the pursuit of the tags by non-hunters. Again, looking at the lottery example. I'd agree that there would probably be non-hunters applying so they could eventually sell the tag once drawn, but I would bet that number would be very small in consideration of risk/reward observed in other lotteries.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

Finding 40 people in Utah that would spend $100,000 on the Henry deer tag may be tough but finding 40 people worldwide would be easy.


----------



## willfish4food (Jul 14, 2009)

GaryFish said:


> I see exactly what you are saying. But I'm not quite sure it would play out that way. Here is why.
> 
> Right now, a Henry Mountain deer tag, probably the most coveted tag in America, would sell at auction for what? $100,000? Why?
> 
> ...


GF, Your posts are negating my doomsday the sky is falling theories of what would happen if... Stop being rational!


----------



## svmoose (Feb 28, 2008)

Draw odds would go through the roof. Let's pretend that non-hunters don't get involved - which they would. Everyone who is serious about hunting will put in for their family members and friends who do or don't hunt and then transfer the tags when drawn. I can think of 5-10 people I would start putting in for in order to hunt their tags.

This is a terrible idea, I don't even like the youth party hunting proposed change for the same reason on a smaller scale.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

GaryFish said:


> Again, that takes no opportunity away. No reduction in tags. And you don't have to sell one if you draw. Its all up to you to do whatever you choose.


Of course it takes opportunity away, albeit indirectly. If you quadruple the number of applicants for premium or even other tags from non hunters just applying for a payday, the hunter that really wants draw and hunt that particular tag has his odds to draw drop and thus his opportunity to hunt that tag decline.

This is not much different than the "tags for the highest bidder" idea floated a while ago that most of us detested. Good for daddy warbucks, bad for the average Joe hunter without great wealth.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

I'm telling you more corporations will be formed to get there hand in that pot. It won't just be a matter of hunters putting in. There would be plenty of incentive.


----------



## willfish4food (Jul 14, 2009)

Oh and I'm still against transfer of tags. 

If for noting else, I think that even if there was no point creep, some people would be selling their tags at a profit. I just don't think more opportunities to make a profit off of tags should be given to the public.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

svmoose said:


> Draw odds would go through the roof. Let's pretend that non-hunters don't get involved - which they would. Everyone who is serious about hunting will put in for their family members and friends who do or don't hunt and then transfer the tags when drawn. I can think of 5-10 people I would start putting in for in order to hunt their tags.
> 
> This is a terrible idea, I don't even like the youth party hunting proposed change for the same reason on a smaller scale.


Between our company and the companies we do business with I could put in for several hundred tags. It's a great business plan if you ask me. Sounds like I could start another Ticketmaster.


----------



## Bears Butt (Sep 12, 2007)

BAD idea!


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Gary knows this is a bad idea. Nobody needs to tell him that. He's using an extreme example to try and prove a point against the youth mentor hunting program being discussed. 

It's a major fallacy, but this stuff works when dealing with the masses. Politicians do this all the time.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

I'm still not there yet. Thinking beyond Utah has to come into the equation. If you have enough cash to put in 10 people for a Utah tag for the sake of hunting every year, then you can just hunt in a state where you can get over the counter tags - Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming. And spend less money doing it. So sure, you COULD put in for several hundred tags, but WOULD you? 

Like I mentioned, if even 1/4 of the LE tags were made available on the open market by the tag owners, then competition would drive costs down from the big time $100K payday. Sure, a Henry Mountain tag might still command a pretty good price, but that would be the exception, not the rule. If CWMU deer hunts go for $10,000, then realistically, LE tags would at best, match that fee. And more than likely, be about half of that fee (since much of what you pay for on a CWMU hunt is the chance to hunt alone, or with minimal hunting pressure). 

So not every tag will command six figure dollars. In fact, I would suggest that most tags would be lucky to go for over $1,000 dollars. Because outside of a couple of very unique tags (Henry Mountains for example), guys willing to spend that money can spend it straight up in Wyoming, Idaho, Montana, Canada, Alaska, etc.....


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

TS30 said:


> Gary knows this is a bad idea. Nobody needs to tell him that. He's using an extreme example to try and prove a point against the youth mentor hunting program being discussed.
> 
> It's a major fallacy, but this stuff works when dealing with the masses. Politicians do this all the time.


Not necessarily. I wanted to pull the overall idea of transferring tags out of the youth mentor hunting program because I think it is a different issue.

And yes, I'm trying to encourage a discussion here because I enjoy quality discussions with thoughtful and intelligent people.

Now all that said, aside from an initial reaction of "That's just a bad idea", I am very interested in WHY? Are the fears substantiated? When we take it a couple of steps down the road, are the fears still there? Not in the extreme, not in the exception, but in the every day, would it really work that way kind of questioning.

And quite honestly, the more I'm thinking it through - I seriously am not sure it is a BAD idea.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

GaryFish said:


> And yes, I'm trying to encourage a discussion here because I enjoy quality discussions with thoughtful and intelligent people.


I guess it is time for me to bow out of this thread as well


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

Cracking me up Mr. Muleskinner. Cracking me up! :grin:


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

You really can't throw other states into the equation since for deer the Henry Mountains is the holy grail of mule deer hunting. Montana, Alaska, and Idaho just don't offer even close to the same quality in one area. Also if you want to throw other states into the fray why not list Alabama where you can take 5 deer or any of the other eastern states that are having the problems with whitetails? Also where you say that if you can afford to put 10 people in for $100 dollars that then they could afford to go out of state just doesn't fly. A lot of hunters can afford the money but they can't afford the time to hunt out of state. On a out of state hunt you have to figure one or two days travel plus the hunting time. So if you only have a weekend you are shot in the foot before you even think of going.


----------



## derekp1999 (Nov 17, 2011)

GaryFish said:


> ... aside from an initial reaction of "That's just a bad idea", I am very interested in WHY?


I know why it's a bad idea & everyone points to "point creep"...

Because it would make it more difficult for *me* to got *my* tag! 
Because it would devalue all *my* points that *I've* already accumulated.
Because... *I'm* ENTITLED!


----------



## svmoose (Feb 28, 2008)

It's not more expensive. I can put in 10 family members for $100 a year. Show me another state that I can hunt for that price. Eventually it adds up but that's less than a single nonresident application in Nevada, Idaho, or Arizona. It's not that expensive and everyone will do it because eventually you're getting 10 LE hunts out of the deal.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

So since we the people own the animals, lets put a price tag of 100k on them. That has a promising future. I am with muleskinner on this, corporations would be formed. You can't see mossback gettin all over this? They would own the henry's! Wouldn't cost much as a company to put in for the whole family every year. I would hold family reunions and have booths set up to enter for the draw! You could even write it off! And as far as other states... I can think of a couple WORLD record deer and elk outta utah. Anyone know how utah's mule and elk records compare to national? I am sure no one would come here. Just like no one buys the antelope island tag every year. No one comes to CWMU's. Hell, cwmu would prosper. Their $10,000 tags would become a bargain. Might even need a price increase.

Man, do I fill my tag or take $100,000 and go on red stag, caribou, african, etc... Hunts all covered easily by that 100k. 

I am sure it would all run smoothly. :grin:


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

RandomElk16 said:


> Man, do I fill my tag or take $100,000 and go on red stag, caribou, african, etc... Hunts all covered easily by that 100k.


I go to Africa 4 times.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

have to draw the tag first. 

My thousands of applicants that I have recruited to my new company UtahGameTag.com might be willing to sell one to you though. I am sure they will be happy to as matter of fact. That is why they put in for the tag in the first place. I have decided that I will make more money now and recruit more applicants if I just skim a little off of the top. Ticketmaster is a great business model.


----------



## Fowlmouth (Oct 4, 2008)

$100,000 :shock: poaching = $1,000 fine maybe and a misdemeanor charge. Just saying if your that hard up for a deer.


----------



## KineKilla (Jan 28, 2011)

Let's see....

$10/yr. for say 18 years (because that's just how my luck is.) = $180 + $168 (cost for the tag) = $348

$348 tag sells for what did we say? $100k? 
So, $100,000 / $348 = 2,875.3 % return on investment? 
Hell, forget the stock market I'm playing the Utah Deer Investment market!


----------



## Dodger (Oct 20, 2009)

Why is it illegal to allow people to sell their vote? Why does the law prevent citizens from assigning their vote to someone else?

You could make some pretty good money on that in a number of states around the country.


----------



## lifes short (Sep 11, 2013)

I think we have gone to far in the direction of selling tags to the highest bidder. I do not like all of the tags that go to auction right now, 211 Limited Entry and Once in a Lifetime Conservation Permits plus the Sportsmans permits plus the CWMU permits plus Landowner Permits. I am afraid the trend is moving to people that have money being the only people that would end up hunting. I do not think your average Joe would be able to pass up say $10,000 or even $2,000 dollars if they were lucky enough to draw a decent tag of any species. Looking back at my hunting I do not think my family would have been hunting in this scenario and i
I would have missed out on some great memories. I believe this case would make it very difficult if not impossible for the average family to go on a decent hunt, even a general deer hunt every couple of years like now. I see people spending $500 to $1500 for Cow Elk tags all the time. I truly believe that Muleskinners take on this would happen. There are allready businesses to help you put in for permits to maximize your success and they do not work for free. I would have 10+ people put in for me in a heatbeat for permits. I would buy a deer tag every year, but for me to do this someone else could not go hunting that year. I do not see any way this proposal would be good for the average person. But I think it would be wonderful for those with more disposable income. Rich people could hunt a lot more (could either buy a tag or pay to put more people in) but poorer people would be out ( who could turn down that kind of money). For hunting to go in the direction I feel is right people in all demographics should have the same chance of getting those tags. We have allready started down a slipperry slope with the tags that generate so much money for wildlife causes. The money is good for wildlife but at what price for the average person.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

So consider this part - if EVERYONE and their grandma are now applying for that holy grail of the Henry Mountain tag, would that improve draw odds on the other units?


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

I love the arguments for this. I hope SFW is giving those of you who make those arguments a rebate on your membership.

The bigger problem, is that it negates the NAMWC. But then again, that's what we are trying to do here in Utah right?

http://joomla.wildlife.org/index.php?id=171&option=com_content&task=view


----------



## Dodger (Oct 20, 2009)

GaryFish said:


> So discussion in another thread got me thinking about the concept that any big game tag acquired through purchase or draw, why not allow the owner of that tag to then transfer it via gift, sale, trade, whatever - to whomever they want?
> 
> Tag are allocated on per unit basis for the purpose of managing herds. So each tag represents harvest of the animal. Biology is blind as to who pulls the trigger/releases the arrow. A hunter is a hunter.
> 
> ...


For one, if there is money to be made by anyone by selling tags, the DWR is going to make sure it is them making the money.

Tags will never be freely assignable because if someone is going to sell their Henry's tag for $200k, the DWR is going to sell it for $200k to the same guy and cut you out as the middleman.

Call me cynical.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

derekp1999 said:


> I know why it's a bad idea & everyone points to "point creep"...
> 
> Because it would make it more difficult for *me* to got *my* tag!
> Because it would devalue all *my* points that *I've* already accumulated.
> Because... *I'm* ENTITLED!


Yes, point creep is a main reason. And yes, those of us that apply for tags see that such a plan *does *devalue our points and decrease odds to draw and thus opportunity. Is there anything *wrong* with that?

I would bet almost all of us on this particular board are in the same boat. And yes, maybe we do feel we are just as *entitled *to hunt our *PUBLIC *resource as some rich dude that can pony up $100000 a year to hunt where he wants.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

GaryFish said:


> So consider this part - if EVERYONE and their grandma are now applying for that holy grail of the Henry Mountain tag, would that improve draw odds on the other units?


Not a chance. My business model also shows draw odds that allows my clients to play the same game that we all do today. They know it is like playing the stock market. They also know that EVERY tag will sell for a profit. It is a guaranteed profit in fact so long as demand exceeds supply. Last I checked that has been the case for several years.

I'm telling you.........I am going to be filthy rich. I may even sponsor my own college bowl game. The UtahGameTag.com Bowl. Buying a ticket to the game will also enter you into a raffle for a free spike tag on the Monroe Unit!!!!!

Sorry 1-I couldn't resist. ;-)


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

dodger said:


> for one, if there is money to be made by anyone by selling tags, the dwr (and the legislature) is going to make sure it is them making the money.
> 
> Tags will never be freely assignable because if someone is going to sell their henry's tag for $200k, the dwr is going to sell it for $200k to the same guy and cut you out as the middleman.
> 
> Call me cynical.


+100


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Dodger said:


> For one, if there is money to be made by anyone by selling tags, the DWR is going to make sure it is them making the money.
> 
> Tags will never be freely assignable because if someone is going to sell their Henry's tag for $200k, the DWR is going to sell it for $200k to the same guy and cut you out as the middleman.
> 
> Call me cynical.


Not exactly, it is the middle men that transfer the benefits to those in the DWR, and the legislature. If it goes state to the state, yeah sure they can waste it, but if it goes to a middleman, that kicks back to the 
DWR, and law makers, well then that is much better.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

Lonetree said:


> The bigger problem, is that it negates the NAMWC. But then again, that's what we are trying to do here in Utah right?


I'm not sure it does. If ALL tags are allocated by an open and free market, I could see that. But I'm talking about tags being allocated as currently done, but once a guy holds a tag, he has the opportunity to transfer that tag as he sees fit. He can certainly keep it and enjoy the opportunity, gift it to someone else for whatever reason, or sell it.

But the core of The Model are still in tact - game belongs to the people, and hunting (tag allocation) is available to all.


----------



## derekp1999 (Nov 17, 2011)

Catherder said:


> Yes, point creep is a main reason. And yes, those of us that apply for tags see that such a plan *does *devalue our points and decrease odds to draw and thus opportunity. Is there anything *wrong* with that?


Nope, nothing wrong with that... I just answered the question of "why" from my perspective. 
*I* have points that *I* don't want devalued, *I've* invested time that *I* don't want devalued, and *I've* invested money that *I* don't want devalued. 
Do* I* have a sense of entitlement... by this arguement *I* do.

Do I like the thought of transferrable tags that would then go to the highest bidder... no. Because long before it could ever have the possiblity of affecting *me* positively (drawing a quality tag and making $$$ by selling it), it would affect *me* negatively (by devaluing what I've already put into the system).

I see a lot of people saying the public owns the animals, but the way I read the NAMWC it says that game is owned by no one but is held in trust by the governemnt... am I reading it wrong?


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

GaryFish said:


> I'm not sure it does. If ALL tags are allocated by an open and free market, I could see that. But I'm talking about tags being allocated as currently done, but once a guy holds a tag, he has the opportunity to transfer that tag as he sees fit. He can certainly keep it and enjoy the opportunity, gift it to someone else for whatever reason, or sell it.
> 
> But the core of The Model are still in tact - game belongs to the people, and hunting (tag allocation) is available to all.


Technically available to all, false argument. Such a model can not drive prices down, only up. Competition can drive quality, but tags will still sell for what the market will bear. We know those numbers, they are high. If wildlife is doing well and there are large racks, the price goes up. If times are bad, and animals are few, demand goes up, as does the price. Especially since a tag is opportunity, not a guarantee.

So if we shift things away from a democratic, egalitarian system, as layed out by the NAMWC. And increase the cost of hunting, while reducing opportunity, which is what tag transfer would do, you are negating the NAMWC. This would shift a system that is already bordering being to heavily monetized, to one that is completely monetized. Technically you could be talking about negating at least 2, maybe 3 tenets of the NAMWC.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

So is money THE issue in transfer of tags? 

Lonetree, in regards to The Model, voluntary, non-monetized transfer of tags would be OK? Such as gifting of your tag to your kid, or a disabled vet? Would that be OK?


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

GaryFish said:


> So is money THE issue in transfer of tags?


Not for me. A person that is issued a tag should be the last in line IMO. I wouldn't fight against having a tag transferred in the case of a life threatening illness so long as both parties were part of the harvesting process. That said if given the opportunity to vote for or against that given scenario at this moment, chances are I would vote against it. I would still have to think the process through some more before casting my vote if I had one later on.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

GaryFish said:


> So is money THE issue in transfer of tags?
> 
> Lonetree, in regards to The Model, voluntary, non-monetized transfer of tags would be OK? Such as gifting of your tag to your kid, or a disabled vet? Would that be OK?


No, not just money. It would affect the overall "equality" of tag distribution. More than just money would be at play, when it comes to someone's chance at a tag, it opens multiple avenues, for preferential distribution.

The current proposal to allow the "sharing" of a tag with a child, is a good example of a law of heredity, that disproportionately provides advantages over others. Looks to be benign on the surface, creates opportunity, and "mentoring", but when broken down, it goes against some fundamental principals.

The disabled vet argument is nice, if you could only wave a flag while doing it. oh wait, music in the background too. I think there should be more hunting and fishing opportunity made available for veterans. But to give them an advantage that could be gamed over others, no. Me and my brother, and father and friends, all putting in for tags so we can transfer it my disabled veteran grandfather. Yeah, I would seriously consider doing it, but at who's expense?


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

It would be at your expense. Because it would be your tag if you drew. No one else would lose anything. Just the tag holder.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

There are more worms in that can than you realize! Here's some I thought of that haven't yet been mentioned. I'll sit back and let you "discuss" them. In fact, I'll take my own can of worms and head up to Yankee Meadow on this beautiful, warm Indian Summer day to catch my limit of 4 trout (Rainbow, Brook or Brown) and I'll get back to you later this evening to see how many worms it takes for you to sort this out!

1- In order to hunt, does the hunter have to pass the hunter safety course and buy a license? How do those requirements effect applications and sales?

2- If we sell private property (permits) that now belong to us, how does that help the DWR or wildlife?

3- Do we have to designate the new hunter to the DWR? A new form to fill out?

4- Do we have to reveal the price?

5- Are resident and non-resident tags interchangable?

6- Suppose this great program does so well that it catches on in other states, what then? Does it change how we apply for hunts in other states?

7- Will OIL permits truely remain OIL?

8- Do waiting periods apply? For who?

9- Does the seller/giver have to accompany the buyer/recipient on the hunt?

There are probably other worms, but the fish are waiting!
See ya!


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

1- In order to hunt, does the hunter have to pass the hunter safety course and buy a license? How do those requirements effect applications and sales?
Yes. All other requirements would be in place.​2- If we sell private property (permits) that now belong to us, how does that help the DWR or wildlife?
Its irrelevant. DWR and wildlife would be impacted exactly the same as if we keep the permit. Once the permit is issued to the initial holder, DWR is out of it.​
3- Do we have to designate the new hunter to the DWR? A new form to fill out?
Yes. It could be printed on the back of the tag - kind of like transferring a car title.​
4- Do we have to reveal the price?
Nope.​
5- Are resident and non-resident tags interchangable?
Sure. Why not. Once the tag is issued, it doesn't matter who holds the tag.​6- Suppose this great program does so well that it catches on in other states, what then? Does it change how we apply for hunts in other states?
It would depend on that state. Looking across the country, most states do not have shortages of hunting tags, so there is no reason to do something like this. Only states where there is more demand than supply would probably consider anything like this.​
7- Will OIL permits truely remain OIL?
You could only DRAW one OIL tag. And if you choose to gift or sell it, that is up to you if that is how you choose to use your one and only shot. You could buy as many as other folks are willing to sell you.​
8- Do waiting periods apply? For who?
Only for the person that drew the tag. Any subsequent holders would not.​
9- Does the seller/giver have to accompany the buyer/recipient on the hunt?
Nope. Once the tag is transferred, the original tag holder has no further connection, unless they want it. If you gift it to your kid, you're probably going to want to go along. If you sell it to Mr. Moneybags, then probably not - but it would be totally up to you.​
All good questions. I don't see any of them as problematic however.

Have a great time on the water! Hope you catch what you are fishing for!


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

GaryFish said:


> 1- In order to hunt, does the hunter have to pass the hunter safety course and buy a license? How do those requirements effect applications and sales?
> Yes. All other requirepments would be in place.​2- If we sell private property (permits) that now belong to us, how does that help the DWR or wildlife?
> Its irrelevant. DWR and wildlife would be impacted exactly the same as if we keep the permit. Once the permit is issued to the initial holder, DWR is out of it.​
> 3- Do we have to designate the new hunter to the DWR? A new form to fill out?
> ...


None are problematic?

#6
Other states dont have a problem, so in the states that do lets use the supply and demand issue to our advantage. Price and competition hikes. Remember when the XBox 360 came out? I waited in line and sold one online for a $1500 profit. Was there other people in line? Yes. Did they sell theirs? Most did. Lets try and hurt a system that is already in danger.

#7
Great. Lets allow one guy to kill moose every year. Whats it matter who holds the tag! J.C. this is a ridiculous statement. The second I typed it I became red. What does it matter who uses the tag?? Why have OIL? Why even have a dwr? I feel like I am losing Intelligence for even having to debate this.

#8
Again, awesome. I can buy tags every year and draw my own. Mr Mule can I work for your company? I will be a manager in the Tag Increase division. We can purchase tags from uninformed low class individuals who only see the dollar sign and sell high. Heck, we could enroll them in our draw program. They give us their utah hunter info, we handle everything, then if they draw we give them a decentage percentage, say 15% percent. I bet we could even charge them a processing fee for joining, or an annual fee.

Lets just make a pyramid scheme outta the utah tag system!

Gary none of this is personal. Just have to be on the other side of the fence! Are you rich? Cuz this sure is a rich mans dream!


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

RandomElk16 said:


> None are problematic? #8
> Again, awesome. I can buy tags every year and draw my own. Mr Mule can I work for your company? I will be a manager in the Tag Increase division. We can purchase tags from uninformed low class individuals who only see the dollar sign and sell high. Heck, we could enroll them in our draw program. They give us their utah hunter info, we handle everything, then if they draw we give them a decentage percentage, say 15% percent. I bet we could even charge them a processing fee for joining, or an annual fee.


Absolutely! I am going to need a lot of help because this business will explode. I do think in the long run though we would be better off taking the 15% rather giving that much back. I think we could actually make more money by providing the service. I am actually starting to lean more towards the EBAY model rather than the Ticketmaster model. At least then the bidders would feel that they stand a fighting chance when the bids open. We can still put a reserve on the tags though and will always profit the 15%. I am liking this more and more.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

RandomElk16 said:


> Are you rich? Cuz this sure is a rich mans dream!


Absolutely right..."...the rich who are content to buy what they have not the skill to get by their own exertions--these are the men who are the real enemies of the game." Theodore Roosevelt was right...

....if we open up tags as transferrable, we are only shooting the guy without means in the foot and stabbing the North American Wildlife Conservation Model squarely in the chest!


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

Its all good RandomElk. I totally see what you are saying. 

I am not rich. Not at all. So I would be a guy selling a tag, not buying it. 

I am interested however in part of the discussion here though. 

Take the OIL thing. I put in for it. I either draw, or I don't. If I draw, then I can hunt and have a once in a lifetime adventure. AWESOME! If I don't draw, then I don't hunt. Does it matter to me then, who does? What would make one person more deserving than another? And why should I care? I don't have the tag, so why does it impact me, what someone lucky enough to get a tag decides to do with it? Regardless of if the guy that drew the tag uses it, gives it to his dying Grandpa for one last wish, or sells it for enough money to send his kid to college, it doesn't change that I didn't draw out. I'm not saying that anyone has to transfer their tag. Not at all. But should they have that choice?

The thought however, challenges a sense that somehow, somewhere, I am entitled to a tag, AND I am entitled to determine how someone else uses their tag. I'm not sure I would buy in to that premise.

I really like your question on it though. You assert that the mere suggestion is ridiculous. Why so?


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

GaryFish said:


> Does it matter to me then, who does? What would make one person more deserving than another? And why should I care? I don't have the tag, so why does it impact me, what someone lucky enough to get a tag decides to do with it? Regardless of if the guy that drew the tag uses it, gives it to his dying Grandpa for one last wish, or sells it for enough money to send his kid to college, it doesn't change that I didn't draw out.


Yeah...it does matter to me. If I didn't draw out, and Gill Bates the CEO of Orange Computers didn't draw out. But, he was able to secure a tag because he has a lot more money than me....that does matter. No, it doesn't change that I didn't draw out, but it does change the fact that he didn't draw out but still gets the tag.


----------



## lifes short (Sep 11, 2013)

I think this would also put an end to the Conservation permits and Sportsmans Permits. Why would anyone pay those prices when you could buy those permits off of an individual for 10X less.

That would probably upset the DWR when they no longer got their check from the conservation groups. Look at the year 2012 in the links below, $840,000.00 plus $1,500,00.00 for conservation projects. I bet the conservation groups would be a little upset at missing out on the $450,00.00 that is their share of this pie
http://wildlife.utah.gov/pdf/conservation_permit_revenue.pdf
http://wildlife.utah.gov/pdf/conservation_permit_projects.pdf


----------



## bfr (Apr 26, 2009)

Since I don't have a dog in this fight I'll put in my 2 cents.

NO selling.....period! As has been aptly stated, too many ways to cheat the system.

As for gifting, only to family under rigid guidelines. For example;

Tag winner would have to provide documentation showing the reason to have occurred after application/drawing.
Transfer would have to be made in person at DFW office with applicable fees.
Transfer would be restricted to specified relations, ie. grandparent to grandchildren, parent to child or between siblings. 
No transfer to extended family.
If transfer involved resident to non resident tags the increased cost would have to be paid..
If tag is OIL or LE recipient is governed by existing rules and would forfeit any existing points for that tag, just as if they had drawn.


If is determined that a tag was sold or traded for value it is forfeit and those involved charged under "sale of game" laws, and future hunting privileges restricted or lost.

I did not include disabled vets in the transfer list because there are other avenues available to them. Before anyone gets upset about that, I am a disabled vet so I don't want to hear it.

I feel it could be worked out fairly for everyone but it would have to be very limited and very restrictive in application. Would it be worth it? Only to some.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

GaryFish said:


> It would be at your expense. Because it would be your tag if you drew. No one else would lose anything. Just the tag holder.


The two applications from my father and brother, that currently do not put in for anything, and all my non-hunting friends putting in, affect the ability of other hunters to draw a tag. My grandfather would benefit from 7 or 8 people putting in for tags for him, while others that do not have the money, or the recourses, and privilege (people) that someone else may have.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

bfr said:


> Since I don't have a dog in this fight I'll put in my 2 cents.
> 
> NO selling.....period! As has been aptly stated, too many ways to cheat the system.
> 
> ...


While the whole child/grandchild thing sounds safe enough. Laws of heredity are for the monarchy, the King, and his sons.


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

When you reduce it to "what the market will bear", then you've made it market hunting again. Look where that got us with ducks. **** near exterminated them.

You draw the tag, you can do with it as you please…. within the law. Use it. Burn it. Return it under certain circumstances. But it's yours, and no one else's.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Fishrmn said:


> When you reduce it to "what the market will bear", then you've made it market hunting again. Look where that got us with ducks. **** near exterminated them.
> 
> You draw the tag, you can do with it as you please&#8230;. within the law. Use it. Burn it. Return it under certain circumstances. But it's yours, and no one else's.


The Devils lawyers response: We are still only going to allocate the same number of tags. The market would be a monetary one only. If people really wanted to hunt, even with tags going for astronomical prices, they would find a way. The real hunters will hunt every 5 years, and will find a way to afford it. And those that have created this great system, that will roll some of the money back into the wildlife, will be justified in their rule of wildlife laws and markets. Why should you be "entitled" to an equal chance at anything? socialist!


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

And next up, for sale to the highest bidder…. your vote?


----------



## bfr (Apr 26, 2009)

Sorry Lonetree, "laws of heredity-monarch" scenario doesn't play. Monarchs don't buy tags and their subjects aren't allowed to kill the game. 

We're talking different situations, my point is, you put in for an OIL or LE tag, you're in good health, you have a heart attack or some equally serious medical problem arise unexpectedly you would be able to transfer that tag to your child or grandchild all listed restrictions applied.

Since this would be available to everyone in this situation there is no special treatment for the "privileged" few.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

One more on this.


GaryFish said:


> 7- Will OIL permits truely remain OIL?You could only DRAW one OIL tag. And if you choose to gift or sell it, that is up to you if that is how you choose to use your one and only shot. You could buy as many as other folks are willing to sell you.​8- Do waiting periods apply? For who?Only for the person that drew the tag. Any subsequent holders would not.​


Once you introduce open market bidding on drawn tags with no OIL restrictions for the bidders, the only people that are under OIL restrictions are the poor proxy applicants that are lucky enough to cash in on a hunting payday. IMO, this is discriminatory against such lucky souls that are denied a second opportunity to financially score again.

Under such a system as you suggest, why even bother with the sham of a premium or OIL draw. In your scenario, a wealthy hunter will be able to hunt public hunts every year he wishes to pay enough and the poor hunter that lucks out will not be able to "afford" to keep a premium or OIL tag. (A needed new truck, house down payment, debt elimination, etc,etc or a moose or buff hunt? Not much of a decision for a great many of us.) IMO, you might as well have the DWR just have tags go out in an open bidding system where they can recoup far more money than they currently do. If you favor such a system, then fine, but I (and many of us) do not.


----------



## Dave B (Oct 1, 2007)

Worst idea ever!! Didn't bother reading through all the rest. Read the initial post and responded


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

bfr said:


> Sorry Lonetree, "laws of heredity-monarch" scenario doesn't play. Monarchs don't buy tags and their subjects aren't allowed to kill the game.
> 
> We're talking different situations, my point is, you put in for an OIL or LE tag, you're in good health, you have a heart attack or some equally serious medical problem arise unexpectedly you would be able to transfer that tag to your child or grandchild all listed restrictions applied.
> 
> Since this would be available to everyone in this situation there is no special treatment for the "privileged" few.


Kings or no kings, it is still a law of heredity, that gives advantage, regardless of circumstance, to the tag transferee, over others in the system. If that child or grandchild wants to put in for 18 years for the same hunt that his father or grandfather can no longer hunt because of circumstance, then fine. Laws of heredity, have no place in democratically elected, constitutional republics, and are clearly contrary to the NAMWC and the hundreds of years of laws, philosophies, and doctrines that sportsmen have fought for.


----------



## ARCHER11 (May 26, 2011)

KineKilla said:


> Let's see....
> 
> $10/yr. for say 18 years (because that's just how my luck is.) = $180 + $168 (cost for the tag) = $348
> 
> ...


Not pointing this out to be a jerk just to show the reality of the investment. Its actually a 28,635% gain. You'd be crazy not to "invest"!


----------



## bfr (Apr 26, 2009)

Since the transferee is out of the future draw after accepting the tag and the transferor is out also, the advantage, if there is one, goes to future applicants as 2 people are out of the draw for that tag.

Gues we'll have to agree to disagree..........or not

Since I come hunt Utah every 3yrs or so for cow elk and I stopped hunting deer there 10yrs ago OIL and LE draws don't matter to me. Just threw out an idea that, with careful planning and implementation I think could be workable.


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

Man, too many posts to keep up with. I think a lot of people are not considering one very important detail. It's called Hunter Ed #. If all these hundreds of people, non-hunters, were to put in, they would have to have a Hunter Ed card. How many non-hunters would really be able to upfront the cost for that, remember that cost in economics is any foregone opprtunity. 

If non-hunters are just that, they would likely not be willing to forego other opportunities they would much rather have just to enroll and complete a hunter ed class. What about Federal and State Income Taxes, Sales Taxes, and Capital Gains Taxes? How many people would want to deal with that garbage in the end? How many people would actually be able to realize the payout of their investment? Hardly any. 

Anyone young enough to see it (19 points is it?) will most definately need the hunter ID and anyone old enough to not need it will in all likelyhood be dead by the time they could realize it, because they are non-hunters putting in for it, remember, without any points to get a jump on it. I don't see how this turns into the "world is falling" point creep scenario.

You get a tag from game and fish, it's your property. You should be able to do with it as you please. Hunting has already turned into a rich man's market, thank you Guy Eastman and friends...


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

High Desert Elk said:


> Man, too many posts to keep up with. I think a lot of people are not considering one very important detail. It's called Hunter Ed #. If all these hundreds of people, non-hunters, were to put in, they would have to have a Hunter Ed card. How many non-hunters would really be able to upfront the cost for that, remember that cost in economics is any foregone opprtunity.
> 
> If non-hunters are just that, they would likely not be willing to forego other opportunities they would much rather have just to enroll and complete a hunter ed class. What about Federal and State Income Taxes, Sales Taxes, and Capital Gains Taxes? How many people would want to deal with that garbage in the end? How many people would actually be able to realize the payout of their investment? Hardly any.
> 
> ...


Like Archer11 pointed out, there could be a very high return. People drive to Idaho to get lottery tickets that probably won't cover the gas, all the time.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

bfr said:


> Since the transferee is out of the future draw after accepting the tag and the transferor is out also, the advantage, if there is one, goes to future applicants as 2 people are out of the draw for that tag.
> 
> Gues we'll have to agree to disagree..........or not
> 
> Since I come hunt Utah every 3yrs or so for cow elk and I stopped hunting deer there 10yrs ago OIL and LE draws don't matter to me. Just threw out an idea that, with careful planning and implementation I think could be workable.


Or.....Someone that could have got that tag because dad or grandpa was not going to take it, will not get it, because little billy is entitled to it like Princes Diana was his mother. So even if the draw odds do not change, under that particular scenario, the transferee is still advantaged over others in the system. And the advantage is by a law, that we have fought revolutions over, because we as a nation to not espouse such preferences.


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

Lots of things we buy, and therefore own, from the State, or government that are not transferable. Driver's license. Vehicle registration. If I pay the taxes and registration on my vehicle, can I sell it to someone and let them put the sticker on their vehicle? CCW permit. Users fees. Impact fees.

If you draw a tag, it's yours. Yours to use. Yours to surrender.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Fishrmn said:


> Lots of things we buy, and therefore own, from the State, or government that are not transferable. Driver's license. Vehicle registration. If I pay the taxes and registration on my vehicle, can I sell it to someone and let them put the sticker on their vehicle? CCW permit. Users fees. Impact fees.
> 
> If you draw a tag, it's yours. Yours to use. Yours to surrender.


You hit on something very key here, to sell this, we need to change the wording from "transfer", to "surrender". That is already legal, we just need to modify the restrictive nature, by which we currently surrender OUR bought and paid for tags. Too many restrictions and regulations. This simple change of wording will fit in perfectly with the current plan to sterilize, er uh, I mean rewrite and simplify the existing code.


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

> surrender:
> 
> give up or hand over (a person, right, or possession), typically on compulsion or demand:


In the case of tags; back to the entity that you acquired it from.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Fishrmn said:


> In the case of tags; back to the entity that you acquired it from.


Yeah, yeah, yeah, but when we are pitching this to the RACs, and the WB we need to make sure we use certain terminology. I mean they aren't really the issue, we have most of them bought, but the general public, they need to hear certain words. Good call on surrender, I like that, it sounds good. Should sell much better than "transfer". "Surrender" sounds like someone is giving something up, where as transfer sounds like someone is gaining something. I think the tone of sacrifice that the word surrender carries should play really well. Follow it up with kids or disabled veteran, or better yet, disabled child veteran, and it should be a slam dunk. Again, very good call on the reword.


----------



## elk77 (Oct 12, 2013)

You think it's hard to draw now. This is the dumbest idea I've heard yet.


----------



## svmoose (Feb 28, 2008)

While we're at it let's let people sell their bonus points.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

svmoose said:


> While we're at it let's let people sell their bonus points.


You mean surrender their bonus points


----------



## colorcountrygunner (Oct 6, 2009)

This sounds like an awesome idea. Then anybody and everybody can put in for hunts they wouldn't normally put in for just so they could sell the tag for big money if they draw someday. There would be many, many more applicants and our already steep draw odds for limited entry hunts could become nothing more than a pipe dream and rich dudes could just pay a bunch of money to that lucky winner! This idea is just incredible!

....oh sorry did I forget to use the sarcasm font?

edit: disregard everything I wrote above if this is a very clever troll job.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

I would not call it a troll job, but rather a very well placed thread to generate some thought on the issue. So while the thread may be fictitious in nature, this sentiment, along with others that seek to transfer the rights of the people, to the privileges of the few, are very real, and alive and well. While maybe not sold as blatantly as I just stated it, that is what they are.

Remember, _surrender_, not sell ;-)


----------



## kc.clyde720 (Nov 7, 2013)

I agree with most people saying selling the tag could end up bad. no questions asked it would destroy chances of current hunters. but i do believe the tag should be transferable to friends or immediate family members because dad has multiple disabilities that severely limit his hunting ability.. in the past 5 years my dad has been able to go hunting once and it took 5 of us to insure we could get him where he wanted to be. he does have a permit that allows him an extended hunting season, but that means little if he cant get out. I continue to put my dad in in the hopes of him being able to draw. and we usually get the general season deer tag but if he cannot go i cannot turn just his tag in because then i and my little brother (who put in as a group for the chance at a family hunt) would then have to turn in our tags... that is why I believe the tags should be transferable but not sold to an unlicenced friend or family member. that way you ensure that one person cannot take multiple animals, and that that tag does not go to waste and someone who didn't get the opportunity to draw can still enjoy hunting that season. that doesnt seem too bad, but I could be missing a big variable...


----------



## torowy (Jun 19, 2008)

Right, but I can tell you right now that all of my cousins would be putting in for tags... so that they could gift them to me. Heck, they wouldn't even have to know that I was putting them in...

So point creep would be terrible. Even in a no point system I would still put in a couple extra times to increase my odds.


----------

