Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 116

Thread: Article on Auction Permits

  1. #1
    Member oakman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Eagle River, Alaska, United States
    Posts
    1,172

    Angry Article on Auction Permits

    I saw this in the news this morning. I'm all for raising money through auctioning off some of these permits, but Mr. Sinnott makes some good points here. Also, why in the heck would we want money going out of state to support wildlife somewhere else?

    http://www.alaskadispatch.com/articl...highest-bidder

    Looks like it's time to write more letters to our reps.

    Richard

  2. #2

    Default

    Oakman, thanks for posting a link to the article here.
    Its sad that this kind of thing happens. Most of us apply for many many years for a chance to hunt in specific areas and/or species, and now the state is trying to let more and more people buy these opportunities out from under under us. I firmly believe that Alaskans are no longer the priority for the states natural resources, and it won't change until we all become a squeaky wheel and express our concern unit changes are made. I know I need to start doing a better job of this myself!!!
    If we don't, I see a lot of the top hunts in the state becoming like Kodiak bear hunts - those with lots of money (and almost all out of staters) having 10-20x better chance at a opportunity than us residents

  3. #3

    Default

    Yes , Thanks for posting.

    More talk on this in the Resource Management forums:

    http://forums.outdoorsdirectory.com/...rnor-s-permits
    "Punish the monkey - let the organ grinder go" - Mark Knopfler

  4. #4
    Member cjustinm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Kotz
    Posts
    1,004

    Default

    i know this is probably a bad attitude to have and without going on some wild rant i will just say... I have a very negative outlook on the future of hunting because it seems every year more opportunities are taken away form the average hunter and given to people and organizations that will pay more for for them. maybe i should buy stock in Dalls Sheep. i realize funding has to come from somewhere but maybe give residents the opportunity to pick up the tab before tags are given away to auction. just charging a small tag fee of a few extra dollars might eliminte this. if people want to complain about wealthy nonresident buying up tags then start footing the bill.

  5. #5
    Member ramhunter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Wasilla
    Posts
    699

    Default

    What a joke, seems like it never ends, someone is always trying to take away more hunting opportunities from Alaskans.

    I sent Rep. Lynn Gattis a letter voicing my concerns about her support for a House Bill that takes away coveted hunting opportunities from resident Alaskans, and gives them to others. She’s been in office a year and already is selling us out!

    I’m so sick of this crap!
    "Mountains are not fair or unfair, they are just dangerous" ~ Reinhold Messner

  6. #6
    Member Roger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Sunshine Alaska
    Posts
    2,048

    Default

    Just goes to prove the old saying... MONEY DOES BUY HAPPINESS ! The rest of us have to play the draw lottery.
    PEOPLE SAY I HAVE A.D.D I DON'T UNDERSTA.....OH LOOK A MOOSE !!!

  7. #7
    Moderator LuJon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Palmer, AK
    Posts
    11,415

    Default

    Does anyone know if auctioned tags are subject to P&R matching funds?

  8. #8
    Member oakman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Eagle River, Alaska, United States
    Posts
    1,172

    Default

    I don't know, but I would guess yes. I'll look it up later tonight.

  9. #9
    Member bushrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Now residing in Fairbanks from the bush
    Posts
    4,363

    Default SCI, RMEF, NRA members ... you should be angry!

    The outright hypocrisy of this bill is simply astounding. Here is the letter SCI-AK sent in support of this legislation. It is being pushed by SCI-AK:
    Dear Representative Gattis:I would like to personally thank you for introducing HB 161 related to the issuance of Governor’s Permits. This Legislation will accomplish two major goals of the angling, hunting and trapping public. First it will set the rate of return on the use of these permits at a level making them much more attractive to qualified non-profits. Right now the available tags are not all being used as the 10% return on their use to a non-profit isn’t sufficient to warrant their use.


    By increasing the percentage a non-profit may keep, more of them will participate thereby increasing the amount of available revenue to the conservation of our wild renewable resources. Furthermore, more interest will be given to these permits as the new language requires consultation between the non-profit raising the money and the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. This provision will hopefully give more alignment between concerned sportsmen and the Department on management issues.


    The second issue of importance in HB 161 is the official definition of the North American Model for Wildlife Conservation. The issue of who manages wildlife in each state is coming to the forefront and this 100 plus year old model is coming under attack by federal agencies. Recently in a meeting between the Western State Directors of Fish and Game Departments and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, the Directors were told that the Model was broken and the feds would be taking over. Worse yet, the threat of using the Endangered Species Act against states to get them to comply with this federal takeover was leveled by the Director of the USFWS.


    HB 161 was discussed by the Legislative Outdoor Caucus Advisory Council a couple of weeks ago and the consensus was that it would be our primary goal that this legislation pass this year. Present at the meeting were representatives from the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Ruffed Grouse Society, SCI Alaska Chapter, SCI Kenai Chapter and the Sportsman’s Conservation Alliance PAC. Since that meeting I have been in discussions with my counterparts in the leadership of the NRA from Fairfax, VA and they are supporting your bill also.
    PO Box 2193
    Palmer, AK 99645
    (907) 841-0358


    Nationally, aside from the NRA, I am also working with the National Assembly of Sportsmen’s Caucuses and the Wild Sheep Foundation to counter the increasing federal overreach into the states’ traditional role as the lead manager of our fish and wildlife resources. Your bill will help solidify our commitment to upholding the North American Model and the primacy of state management.
    If there is anything I can do to assist you in the passage of this landmark bill, please do not hesitate to call on me.
    Sincerely,
    Eddie Grasser
    SCI Vice President
    Chair SCI Gov’t Affairs Committee on State Affairs
    cc: House Resources Committee Members
    Legislative Outdoor Heritage Caucus Members

    Interesting that SCI would still support this legislation after any mention of the North American Model of Wildlife Management was struck from the bill. Of course that had to be struck, cuz NAM is all about democracy in hunting. The wildlife belongs to the people, not the state to take away the common man and woman's hunting privileges to benefit the wealthy hunter and these orgs going down this Utah path of deception.

    Here's another SCI statement, back when they were perfectly happy to receive a couple of the governor's tags we currently allocate (emphasis mine):
    Washington, D.C. – Safari Club International Foundation (SCI Foundation) is hosting for the first time ever, an online auction to sell two highly prized Alaska Governor’s Permits. The first Alaska Governor’s Permit is an opportunity to hunt a Kenai Mountains Caribou (Barren Ground). The second Alaska Governor’s Permit is for the chance to hunt a free-ranging Plains Bison from the coveted Delta Bison Herd.

    “SCI Foundation is excited to host our first online auction for big-game species to increase conservation funding,” said SCI Foundation President, Joe Hosmer. “The hallmark of SCI Foundation’s conservation programs has been that we successfully get financial resources to the agencies and personnel who can make the greatest positive impact for wildlife management. We do not carve out administrative costs, rather dedicating the dollars raised for legitimate research for the big-game species we are so passionate about.

    The auctions are NOW OPEN at http://www.liveauctionworld.com/Alas...uction_as27702 and will remain open until June 30, 2013. The Alaska Governor’s Permits are for the 2013-14 season. This is your exclusive chance to bid for the hunt of a lifetime while contributing to conservation in the great state of Alaska.

    “SCI Foundation is proud to work with the Alaska Department of Fish & Game to offer these unique Governor’s Permits to serious hunter conservationists. We know that the funds we generate will be used in the management of the respective species for the enjoyment of future generations,” concluded Hosmer.

    Not only is SCI now pushing to "carve out administrative costs" by tripling the percentage they and other orgs can keep when they auction off these tags, they are pushing for a brand new "donated" sheep tag in which they or another org can keep 100% of the profits! That's right, nada goes back into the F&G fund.

    Alaska Backcountry Hunters & Anglers has been opposing this bill. It is among our worst fears to see Alaska go down the road of Utah, to completely subvert what the North American Model of Wildlife Mgmt is all about. I strongly urge everyone who opposes this to write or call your legislators, particularly members of the Senate Resources committee who will next hear this bill. (It has been passed by the House!) I strongly urge members of SCI, NRA, RMEF et al who oppose this bill to tell your org leadership that this is a horrible idea and precedent for them to support legislation like this that absolutely will take from resident allocations.

  10. #10
    Member L. G.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    N'ern S.E. AK
    Posts
    838

    Default

    I've always held SCI in pretty low regard. They just dropped another notch.

  11. #11
    Member oakman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Eagle River, Alaska, United States
    Posts
    1,172

    Default

    So here is something to think about....It's a big hassle for them to auction off a permit? The law allows them to keep "reasonable administrative costs" and 10% of the proceeds. So if they auction off a sheep tag for $10,000 and it costs them $1,000 to run the auction, they get to keep the $1,000 for running the auction plus $900. How hard is it to run an auction?

    If I were the organization doing this, I would keep the administrative costs as low as possible and get that tag auctioned off for as much as possible. That does a few things. For one, the lower the costs are, the bigger your take is. If you can find someone to bid $100,000 or more, which according to the article has happened, then you get 10% of a very big number. I'd put this thing on ebay and round up bidders like crazy. You can still promote the auction at your big conferences.

    Also, this gets a lot of money into the conservation efforts.

    Now trying to get a tag where you get to keep 100% of the money....that is just trying to promote your organization. I suppose those people have high dollar people running the joint, they want some money too...

    Just a bunch of BS that doesn't benefit the wildlife in Alaska or the residents of the state, this should not even be voted on, let alone passed.

  12. #12

    Default

    Montana has gotten a high of about 300,000.00 for one sheep tag. money goes to Bighorn management. Don't see why a non profit should get a cent. I thought it was for the betterment of the game, not an organization.

  13. #13
    Member hodgeman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Delta Junction AK
    Posts
    4,055

    Default

    What a bunch of crap.

    It's a bunch of rich ninnies who won't move here and play by the rules and odds the rest of us live with.
    "I do not deal in hypotheticals. The world, as it is, is vexing enough..." Col. Stonehill, True Grit

  14. #14
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    6,031

    Default stupid, stupid, stupid

    I would really like to post a comment about how totally idiotic of a road this is to go down...

    ... but I am unable to make such a post without flagrantly shattering most of the rules of this forum. I'll just have to wait until I can talk civilly about this subject; there's no sense posting a string a swear words on here that the mods would just need to delete.

    There. Did it. Hitting send now before I start swearing.

  15. #15
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Wasilla
    Posts
    515

    Default

    Why not have the state do the auctioning and keep 100% of the profits after costs. Or just do a lottery. If these are so coveted why not let anyone buy a chance for the hunt they want for $10.00. The states that run those money lotteries rake in the money and they give multi million dollar prizes and till make millions for their projects.

  16. #16
    Member BrettAKSCI's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    1,623

    Default

    Wow………..where to begin?!?!

    1. I am on the BOD for AK SCI. I also am a representative to the sportsman's caucus. I support and have lobbied for this bill. I say this just so my special (volunteer) interests are disclosed.

    2. The intent of the bill: To raise more money for conservation in Alaska since our F&G has a lack of funds to do what they need.

    3. Under the old program organizations kept 10% of the proceeds. Under the new program organizations keep 0% of the proceeds.

    4. The % is increased in the new bill from 10% to 30%, but all of that 30% will be spent on conservation programs.

    5. Those conservation organizations MUST spend ALL of that 30% on a state sanctioned pre approved conservation program. So none of the money goes for lobbying, litigation, or misc organization costs.

    6. Examples of programs would be predator management, Tom's sheep studies, habitat improvement projects, controlled burns, ect. These could be ongoing or new projects. State run or private org projects. The common denominator is that ALL the money MUST be spent on a state pre approved conservation program.

    7. By increasing the number of tags you directly increase the money generated for the state for conservation and management by F&G.

    8. Reason for the 30%: Many organizations chose not the participate in the current Governor's tag system due to the poor return/incentive to participate. The Alaska Chapter of SCI has not used one of the tags in the last 3 years that I have been on the board and involved and likely longer than that. We wanted to change the bill because we'd rather keep NONE of the money, but get a say in the allocation of the money for conservation than keep 10% for our chapter under the current law.

    9. None of the money/resource is stolen from Alaskans since 100% of the proceeds go to management and conservation to improve our resource.

    10. Yes it doubles some (not all/some stay the same number) species for Governor's tags. The intent again for this was to increase the money raised for conservation by selling more tags. This was not drafted by or for rich out of state hunters, but instead to pay for conservation programs here in Alaska.

    11. Does it reduce resident draw opportunity? Yes, but not by much. This is not a resident hunter persecution.

    12. This bill is supported by F&G, and most outdoor organizations in Alaska (RMEF should be removed from that list as their inclusion was an error).

    I don't agree at all, but understand the notion that this is a rich man's encroachment on the average Alaskan hunter. I promise you that is not the intent of this bill. There has been an incredible amount of intentional misrepresentation of this bill to sway public opinion. I don't expect to convince everyone to sign on and call their rep/sen tomorrow in support. I do however want to share some facts about the bill and also give an insight into the purpose/reason for its creation by someone involved rather than hearsay or straight up lies by those with an agenda to sink the bill. Someone mentioned that they found it ironic that the North American model was taken out. I don't. The North American model of conservation is a PAY to play system where sportsmen and women (users) fund to perpetuate the scientific management of a resource for sustainable utilization. In Alaska we are sorely behind the pay to play curve. F&G needs our dollars to do the work that is needed and free moose, caribou, and sheep tags just aren't getting it done. This is one idea to help the North American pay to play/hunter funded conservation model.

    Brett

  17. #17
    Member BrettAKSCI's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    1,623

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by redale View Post
    Why not have the state do the auctioning and keep 100% of the profits after costs. Or just do a lottery. If these are so coveted why not let anyone buy a chance for the hunt they want for $10.00. The states that run those money lotteries rake in the money and they give multi million dollar prizes and till make millions for their projects.
    Isn't that what we do in our current draw? Perhaps putting tags up for a bit more money like a $50-100 chance at a Chugach tag for residents? Interesting idea.

    Brett

  18. #18
    Member BrettAKSCI's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    1,623

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MTguy View Post
    Montana has gotten a high of about 300,000.00 for one sheep tag. money goes to Bighorn management. Don't see why a non profit should get a cent. I thought it was for the betterment of the game, not an organization.
    Under the current law non profits get 10%. Under the proposed law we are discussing non profits get 0%, so you would get your wish.

    Brett

  19. #19
    Member BrettAKSCI's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    1,623

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by oakman View Post
    Now trying to get a tag where you get to keep 100% of the money....that is just trying to promote your organization. I suppose those people have high dollar people running the joint, they want some money too...

    Just a bunch of BS that doesn't benefit the wildlife in Alaska or the residents of the state, this should not even be voted on, let alone passed.
    Under this bill 100% yes that's ALL of the money raised will go to the state or to a state approved conservation programs. The organizations will keep nothing for administrative costs, fundraising costs, or for ice cream after the auction for that matter.

    Brett

  20. #20
    Member BrettAKSCI's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    1,623

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by L. G. View Post
    I've always held SCI in pretty low regard. They just dropped another notch.
    There's certainly some mixed reviews about the national/international body. The Alaska chapter however has done and will continue to do a lot for the state of Alaska's wildlife and hunters. We were instrumental in getting predator management started. We're spear heading the wood bison reintroduction. We fund National Archery in the Schools, The Outdoor Heritage Foundation (who runs the BOW courses as well as countless other outdoor educational courses), Tom's sheep studies, international moose management conference, youth shooting teams, olympic shooting hopefuls, youth education, Outdoor Wilderness Leadership School training for teachers and students, ext, ext. We lobby for pro conservation and hunter issues. We litigate when necessary against animal rights/anti consumptive utilization groups as well as at times the federal government to ensure hunter access and opportunity. It's a mostly thankless job and it's for the most part done by volunteers like myself. Safari Club isn't for rich guys and it isn't for people who go on safari. We're about promoting hunters, hunters rights, and conservation into the future for ALL hunters of every age and means.

    Brett

Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •