Great stuff joe.
I personally don’t think you can use harvest data to prove this point in reduced/loss revenue. One could simply use that same data to argue that the check system isn’t efficient because that 30% is now not checking deer in- possible stretch but you get my point.
As for the 15 dollar doe tag, I believe the ODNR would argue that was sold like an impulse purchase at a store. I would imagine that many hunters who would only buy one tag, now bought 1 tag and the 15 dollar tag so they could harvest another deer(spin this way it could be used to show increased revenue). Again - I don’t think you can directly correlate that loss against the standard cost - assuming the majority of those tags were sold alongside a 24 dollar tag. I do think you could use that number for a loss but only against the number of 15 dollar tags sold without the accompaniment of a standard 24 tag, to accurately do this one would need to have an idea of how many of those hunters buying the 15 dollar tag only wouldn’t have bought that tag if it was 24 - again could be spun to show positive revenue increase. Basically arguing “we can’t sell a second doe tag at 24 but we can at 15, hence we are getting money we wouldn’t get regardless”.
I do believe you can use the tags sold number to estimate reduced revenue stream. The issue I have with this, not enough data.
Initially that 500K loss seems outrageous but do we know what the standard deviation is in tags sales say over a 10 year period?20 year period? How about across multiple states? When looking at that large of a number of tags sold, I could easily see how you would have a 200-600k swing, just based on weather alone- forecast says rain all week of gun, less tags sold.
We know that hunter numbers are declining as well. Since early 2000s there was a lot of guys who were W2 Vets still hunting, who now unfortunately are not - for example.
I am not pro one side or another. I think you bring up fantastic points. I just to try to evaluate from multiple points of view. Hopefully adding some value to this thread.
To me it seems like:
Tag sales are decreasing - due to less hunters, possibly due to less deer and frustrated hunters, etc.
inflation over 15 years justifies small increase
Slight increase will more then cover inflation and reduced tag sales. Which if funds are used correctly will results in a better product for the hunters and fisherman of Ohio( that’s another debate).
Great discussion. Happy Sunday all!
AT
