The HuntingPA.com Outdoor Community banner

201 - 220 of 232 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,776 Posts
All you need to know how stupid this system is that I had an application rejected because I mistakenly sent a check for $7 instead of $6.90. That is bureaucratic stupidity at it's finest. I could see if I was short but I actually paid slightly more and they rejected it. Why would you care if I paid more, that's my problem. LOL.

And the part that really made me shake my head was when I talked to the PGC they said no problem tell the CT the 10 cents is a donation. I tell the CT what they said and the CT tells me the PGC doesn't allow him to. Having 2 different bureaucracies handle this is just dumb and inefficient and as society and the hunting community continue modernizing it becomes more obvious with each passing year.

And for the dense ones, I totally realize I made the mistake. I actually laughed and wanted to kick myself because I instantly knew a bureaucracy would not know what to do even when told what they could do (I work in a bureacracy 😄)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,481 Posts
And if the CT's were doing a bad job of processing the applications it would be a lot easier to remove them. Right?

Good luck, Tony
As I’ve said, some CTs do a stellar job. Some don’t.
All could be replaced with a system that does it cheaper, faster, and with less errors, resulting in a net revenue gain for the PGC.

I’m still not seeing a downside here. Only positive gains for the PGC and every hunter that currently engages in e-commerce and/online activities.

The only ones I see losing anything are some CT temp staff, and possibly those who still have “connections”.

The whole “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” and “if we’ve been getting it done this way without (insert item or process here) we don’t need it” is why our state takes so long to implement any and every change. It’s silly and embarrassing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,909 Posts
i know how to fix it. those who dont like the system, DO NOT SEND IN FOR A DOE TAG. several years of this and the loss of revenue to the CTs, and the PGC, then they will listen and change the system.
BOYCOTT IT NEXT YEAR !!! SEND THE MESSAGE !!

they understand the loss of revenue.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,776 Posts
As I’ve said, some CTs do a stellar job. Some don’t.
All could be replaced with a system that does it cheaper, faster, and with less errors, resulting in a net revenue gain for the PGC.

I’m still not seeing a downside here. Only positive gains for the PGC and every hunter that currently engages in e-commerce and/online activities.

The only ones I see losing anything are some CT temp staff, and possibly those who still have “connections”.

The whole “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” and “if we’ve been getting it done this way without (insert item or process here) we don’t need it” is why our state takes so long to implement any and every change. It’s silly and embarrassing.
Continually repeating your opinion that a different process will be cheaper, faster, and have less errors does not make it fact. As I have said before; if such a process existed, it would have been a easy sell for the PGC to get it approved and implemented.

Good luck, Tony
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,776 Posts
i know how to fix it. those who dont like the system, DO NOT SEND IN FOR A DOE TAG. several years of this and the loss of revenue to the CTs, and the PGC, then they will listen and change the system.
BOYCOTT IT NEXT YEAR !!! SEND THE MESSAGE !!

they understand the loss of revenue.
I love that suggestion!
But; Im guessing such a boycott would not result in a loss. It would just make the hunters who apply for bonus tags chance of getting awarded a tag better.

Good luck, Tony
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,909 Posts
SSSHHH !!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,481 Posts
Continually repeating your opinion that a different process will be cheaper, faster, and have less errors does not make it fact. As I have said before; if such a process existed, it would have been a easy sell for the PGC to get it approved and implemented.

Good luck, Tony
That statement ignores 2 facts.
First, the PGC themselves have claimed such.
Second, it's a political decision to remove the CTs from the process or end their "monopoly" on issuing tags. Since when have politicians based decisions on the bottom line over supporting their own?
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
27,445 Posts
My goodness, buy your license, skim the book over, then apply for Doe Tags. How friggen hard is that? Just curious, cause I’ve been Legally hunting for 43 years and always got my DOE tags.
Yep. If the process changes, good. If it doesn't, good. Whatever the process there'll be glitches. For the most part though, most people won't experience a problem with either the current system or a new one, and there are/will be procedures in place to remedy problems that occur.
Bottom line, almost everyone gets their tags on time, and those who don't have means for rectification.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,776 Posts
That statement ignores 2 facts.
First, the PGC themselves have claimed such.
I didnt ignore anything.

Given the fact that the PGC has presented other process options and we are still using the current one, solidifies the fact that no process has met ALL the criteria needed to justify a change.



Second, it's a political decision to remove the CTs from the process or end their "monopoly" on issuing tags. Since when have politicians based decisions on the bottom line over supporting their own?
I would say in this situation they are clearly supporting their own. They are keeping the $850,000 yearly revenue within the commonwealth.

Good luck, Tony
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,481 Posts
I didnt ignore anything.

Given the fact that the PGC has presented other process options and we are still using the current one, solidifies the fact that no process has met ALL the criteria needed to justify a change.
That implies one of the criteria is maintaining the CT monopoly on issuing tags.


I would say in this situation they are clearly supporting their own. They are keeping the $850,000 yearly revenue within the commonwealth.

Good luck, Tony
If by "keeping the $850,000 within the commonwealth" you mean as payroll to the CTs, we agree.
Wouldn't you rather that revenue (which at a dollar a tag is over $1 Million) go to the PGC where it could be used for conservation/wildlife management?
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
13,839 Posts
That implies one of the criteria is maintaining the CT monopoly on issuing tags.




If by "keeping the $850,000 within the commonwealth" you mean as payroll to the CTs, we agree.
Wouldn't you rather that revenue (which at a dollar a tag is over $1 Million) go to the PGC where it could be used for conservation/wildlife management?
But the money that is currently going to the County Treasurers wouldn't be going to the Game Commission. It would simply be an additional dollar going to which ever agent processed the license through their PALs system. A little bit of it would end up with the Game Commission, provided people bought their licenses on line, but most of it would probably end up with Wal-Mart since that is the leading place people buy their licenses.

Dick Bodenhorn
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,481 Posts
But the money that is currently going to the County Treasurers wouldn't be going to the Game Commission. It would simply be an additional dollar going to which ever agent processed the license through their PALs system. A little bit of it would end up with the Game Commission, provided people bought their licenses on line, but most of it would probably end up with Wal-Mart since that is the leading place people buy their licenses.

Dick Bodenhorn
True, the issuing agent stipend wouldn’t likely change, but I was also taking into account the significant savings from not having to print several million pink envelopes a year and pay to mail them out with every license packet.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,776 Posts
That implies one of the criteria is maintaining the CT monopoly on issuing tags.
It doesnt imply anything. It just states the fact that the process that the PGC presented as a replacement was not approved. There could be a single reason or multiple reasons.


If by "keeping the $850,000 within the commonwealth" you mean as payroll to the CTs, we agree.
Wouldn't you rather that revenue (which at a dollar a tag is over $1 Million) go to the PGC where it could be used for conservation/wildlife management?
What I mean is; Since the PGC has to pay someone to process/issue the antlerless licenses, I would expect Harrisburg to vote to keep that revenue within the state versus sending to a private firm out of state. Unless there would be a gain in another area that would justify that loss of revenue.

Good luck, Tony
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20,775 Posts
As I’ve said, some CTs do a stellar job. Some don’t.
All could be replaced with a system that does it cheaper, faster, and with less errors, resulting in a net revenue gain for the PGC.

I’m still not seeing a downside here. Only positive gains for the PGC and every hunter that currently engages in e-commerce and/online activities.

The only ones I see losing anything are some CT temp staff, and possibly those who still have “connections”.

The whole “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” and “if we’ve been getting it done this way without (insert item or process here) we don’t need it” is why our state takes so long to implement any and every change. It’s silly and embarrassing.
Take a look at the guys on here advocating the system to stay the same.....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20,775 Posts
Hey Tony,

Ok lets leave out error rates for both the archaic system and any proposed new one, because judging these things by error rates will always come down to someones personal experience. If a new system could save the PGC at least ten cents per license over the one we have now, would you be ok with it? If not ten cents, what would be the cutoff savings rate at which you would be willing to try modernizing? Or would you be unwilling at any price?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,481 Posts
What's funny is the sudden concern at possibly "losing" 1M in revenue spread out among 65 CT offices, and that money would go "out of state".
Wouldn't the money saved by the PGC be spent "in-state" on it's end toward management efforts, gamelands development, and on and on?

How many of those CT offices have to bring in temp staff to handle the flood of applications? Not having to do so would offset most if not all of the "lost" revenue to them, and they'd be freer to focus on what they should be doing, working for their County...

Some also forget that when dealing with fulfillment vendors, there's pricing tiers based on volume. If you suddenly offer double the business to a vendor, you get better pricing... So instead of a vendor getting $1 per issued license or tag for 1-1.5million in volume, you can get that price closer to say 80 cents for 2-2.5 million in volume. Not to mention overall cost reductions on a per piece basis by being able to send out lighter packets (no more need to include 2-3 pink envelopes.) You also get savings from not having to pay vendors to buy the paper, print, and assemble the pink envelopes before the license sales start, and freight costs associated with moving all that paper around between vendors and issuing agents. A whole supply chain of savings is realized.

It took about 3 years of convincing several upper-level execs at my company to try the same thing.
They'd been sending out large, rather expensive mailings 3 times a year to sell professional liability insurance to healthcare providers. The kit cost on these were averaging 60 cents for a 3rd class bulk piece. They sent about 1.2 million pieces 3 times a year. Included in each mail piece was a personalized offer letter, a brochure, a card citing association endorsements, a paper application and a pre-paid return mail envelope.(you don't pay the postage on these unless someone mails them back FYI) The brochure also contained links to the website to learn more, get a quote, or apply.

We ran the numbers, conducted a few focus groups and market research, and concluded that we could safely mail out much cheaper kits without the added insertions of a paper application, return envelope, containing only a more personalized offer brochure, and refer potential applicants to our website to get a quote and apply. The proposed kit was 29 cents a piece. Modeled response rates were dead even with the more expensive kit.

Financially, it was a no-brainer move. What caught up the works was institutional inertia. The long-time execs were convinced in their minds that eliminating the paper application process would result in a dramatic dropoff in sales, despite numbers showing that paper response was in steady and rapid decline over the last 10 years, and had fallen to less than 4% of all business, both renewal and new sales... They had even recently outsourced the handling of the paper applications because it wasn't worth them footing the full headcount/benefits for workers to the job.

But it still took 3 years, repeated studies and focus groups to convince them to conduct tests to prove the concept of shifting to a fully online mode of sales. The studies showed that at most 8% of that 5% who responded by paper processes would refuse to participate in a solely online process. (That's 0.4% of the total response.) And you can probably guess the demographic of that "hold-out" group. They happened to be the ones that would not be in the market for the product anyway in another 1-5 years, and were among the least responsive anyway.

So, for 3 years, these execs hemmed and hawwed about possibly losing what they "felt" could be about $400K in annual revenue, but in actuality amounted to $50K in annual revenue, all the while spending approximately $1.5MILLION a year more than necessary to maintain baseline sales.

And this was decisioning without politics in play... purely a "bottom line" decision layered with a major case of risk-aversion/avoidance.... Add politics into the mix, and you can see why any change to the Antlerless process meets with such a volume of objection and progresses so slowly.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,776 Posts
Hey Tony,

Ok lets leave out error rates for both the archaic system and any proposed new one, because judging these things by error rates will always come down to someones personal experience. If a new system could save the PGC at least ten cents per license over the one we have now, would you be ok with it? If not ten cents, what would be the cutoff savings rate at which you would be willing to try modernizing? Or would you be unwilling at any price?
That would depend on how much it cost to buy/start-up the new system and what the yearly operating/maintenance costs would be.

Good luck, Tony
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,776 Posts
Wingatchtochwilsit,

You were able to make a accurate and beneficial change at you job because you had all of the information/data available to you that would be needed to make a informed decision.

When it comes to the antlerless application process, you do not. So any claim of fairness/unfairness, costs, efficiency, procedures, ect. is nothing but speculation on your part.

Good luck, Tony
 
201 - 220 of 232 Posts
Top