DEI for billionaires

[MTGomer]

In order to make access to statewide tags more equitable, Arizona did away with auction tags in favor of raffle tags.
At face value, I support this move under the condition there is data to support that it will raise the same amount of money or if it doesn’t, a plan to raise the difference. (Spoiler: there is no plan).

Congratulations to Mr. Mike Gallo on winning this year’s mule deer raffle tag, which raised just under $246k. While a significant amount of money, this is about $400k less than the auction tag would raise.

Mr, Gallo also won the statewide elk tag.

Mr. Gallo’s family’s net worth is around $12 Billion.

Arizona sportsmen thank Mr. Gallo for his egalitarian contributions to this equitable system and congratulate him in his good fortune of acquiring such wonderful tags following such a great streak of moisture. The large discount is just the cherry on top.

 

[TheTone]

We have a family doing the same here. They only buy the sheep auction tag when it’s valid in a specific area and they sure seem to be lucky at drawing our super tags, especially when an outfitter tells them a giant moose is available

 

[Nick87]

I don't believe in conspiracy theories (jk I sure as #*^@#* do) but I dont believe in coincidences either.

 

[westbranch]

We have a family doing the same here. They only buy the sheep auction tag when it’s valid in a specific area and they sure seem to be lucky at drawing our super tags, especially when an outfitter tells them a giant moose is available

Yeah, when I saw the articles about that record moose a month ago the last name was very familiar.

 

[Dinkshooter]

UGH. Mega backfire.

 

[Roscoe P Coal]

Equal opportunity… meh.. but congrats on buying a raffle tag. It is a raffle right? Just with incredible odds by buying X amount of chances. All about the “experience” of killing world class animals year after year…. Kudos

 

[MTGomer]

In my view, the decision needs be made about whether or not these tags are to provide a hunting opportunity or a funding source.
If hunting opportunity, there should be some reasonable cap on the number each person can buy, that is in the realm of what a normal person could afford. Like $500 worth.

If the primary purpose is to raise funds, then the method that will maximize fund raising should be used.

Currently, less funds are being raised to hand the tags to people who never had a problem paying the former higher prices. People so wealthy, they could pay 20x more and it wouldn’t be a blip to them, while regular people continue to be excluded.

Either let regular people have a shot at the raffles while not raising as much money or sell the tags to billionaires at auction where they’ll pay more.
Discounting them to billionaires seems like the worst option.

 

[Deez Nutz]

So, the guy didn't get lucky, per se, but rather he just bought enough raffle tickets to give himself a good enough chance to win the raffle? And then he did the same thing for the elk tag?

Is there a limit to the number of raffle tickets a person can purchase?

 

[bigsky2]

This same thing happened in Montana last year or the year before for the sheep super tag.

 

[Fire_9]

This same thing happened in Montana last year or the year before for the sheep super tag.

Dad bought the governors tag and then enough super tag chances for his kid to win if I remember right

 

[TheTone]

So, the guy didn't get lucky, per se, but rather he just bought enough raffle tickets to give himself a good enough chance to win the raffle? And then he did the same thing for the elk tag?

Is there a limit to the number of raffle tickets a person can purchase?

It happens across the west with any of these raffle tags. Look at how the same people have them every single year in Oregon and Washington. Often guides are combing the great or paying off locals for locations on big critters and then calling up the rich client and telling them to start buying raffle tickets

I’d be good with also making them subject to the same once in a lifetime or waiting periods as standard tags; especially if they are considered a great hunting opportunity and not a pure money making scheme

 

[brownbear932008]

So, the guy didn't get lucky, per se, but rather he just bought enough raffle tickets to give himself a good enough chance to win the raffle? And then he did the same thing for the elk tag?

Is there a limit to the number of raffle tickets a person can purchase?

That dude buys a bunch in other states as well, not just Arizona whether it's auction tags or governor tags. He loads the odds, very little luck involved.

 

[cgasner1]

In my view, the decision needs be made about whether or not these tags are to provide a hunting opportunity or a funding source.
If hunting opportunity, there should be some reasonable cap on the number each person can buy, that is in the realm of what a normal person could afford. Like $500 worth.

If the primary purpose is to raise funds, then the method that will maximize fund raising should be used.

Currently, less funds are being raised to hand the tags to people who never had a problem paying the former higher prices. People so wealthy, they could pay 20x more and it wouldn’t be a blip to them, while regular people continue to be excluded.

Either let regular people have a shot at the raffles while not raising as much money or sell the tags to billionaires at auction where they’ll pay more.
Discounting them to billionaires seems like the worst option.

Is it known knowledge how many tags have been purchased? It’s probably pretty easy to look at it and go well if I purchase xxx I’ll have a 90 percent chance of drawing this year. I agree with your logic but people seem more worried about screwing everyone else over as per usual

 

[antlerradar]

Either let regular people have a shot at the raffles while not raising as much money or sell the tags to billionaires at auction where they’ll pay more.
Discounting them to billionaires seems like the worst option.

Or option three. Get rid of governors tags.

 

[Wildabeest]

Or option three. Get rid of governors tags.

And now we head down the “residents should pay more” tangent.