The HuntingPA.com Outdoor Community banner

221 - 240 of 295 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,868 Posts
Oh how quickly we dismiss that with which we disagree as "irrelevant"....



Yup, and over time, those holdouts (mostly) adopted the new tech. The key difference here is that in none of the above cases did the hold outs argue for a law to exist (or continue to exist) that prevented those willing to be early adopters to stress test and refine the "new" tech.... which is exactly what we're witnessing here and now. There's a common theme among many (if not most) of those opposing the bill allowing other agents to issue the doe tags: "Prove that it'll do a better job than the CT/Mail-in system first." Basically setting an impossible scenario, since you can't test/prove it here, because we all know what works anywhere or everywhere outside of PA doesn't apply... because PA is different.



To me, the biggest advantage is knowing when I click checkout, I'll know my app is received, I'll know if it was issued, and that if I'm issued a tag, it's for the right WMU... and that (barring fulfillment issues) the right tag will get mailed to me. Yeah, we'll still have USPS in the mix delivering the tag from the (untested here in PA) vendor... but no longer is it a guessing game of when it'll arrive, will it get stuck/dropped/lost/found/damaged in transit or at the CT office, will the CT key in the right WMU, will they put the tag in the right envelope?

Counterpoint: What are the disadvantages of using an online system, or more importantly, of others using an online system?
I get folks don't have faith due to prior experiences. I can understand a wait and see approach among many.
What I don't understand is the "I don't like it, I doubt it'll work, so you can't even try" approach.... which kinda reminds me of another hot topic that we agree on.




Ah, but here's the thing, I don't hear folks asking or expecting an online system to meet the same qc/reliability standard... I'm hearing expectations of absolute perfection... Probably because a) we don't have any quantified metrics on the CT performance, just anecdotal 'evidence' from those saying they've never had a single issue in 50 years and assuming that applies to the other 800,000 hunters out there.... Or that they experienced issues with the website (that wasn't actually an issue with the website, but rather a vendor that is no longer fulfilling the licenses) and assuming that it applies equally to the 800,000+ hunters out there.

And again, how do you prove something if prohibited by law to try?
Normally, we look to how others' experiences went or are going... but being PA, we know the universe ends at the borders.
I dont have a problem with change and have never been against the PGC changing the antlerless process. All I am doing is pointing out the FACT that no one (PGC Included) has ever been able to show a monetary gain or improvement in the error rate with the change.

So if I dont save money and the PGC doesnt save money. If the application process takes me the same amount of time. If I have the same chance of getting a license. And I already get my license weeks in advance of when it can be used. What is the advantage of changing?

Good luck, Tony
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,541 Posts
I dont have a problem with change and have never been against the PGC changing the antlerless process. All I am doing is pointing out the FACT that no one (PGC Included) has ever been able to show a monetary gain or improvement in the error rate with the change.

So if I dont save money and the PGC doesnt save money. If the application process takes me the same amount of time. If I have the same chance of getting a license. And I already get my license weeks in advance of when it can be used. What is the advantage of changing?

Good luck, Tony
Here you go, I knew this was out there. Turns out it was already here:

On board now?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
674 Posts
I dont have a problem with change and have never been against the PGC changing the antlerless process. All I am doing is pointing out the FACT that no one (PGC Included) has ever been able to show a monetary gain or improvement in the error rate with the change.

So if I dont save money and the PGC doesnt save money. If the application process takes me the same amount of time. If I have the same chance of getting a license. And I already get my license weeks in advance of when it can be used. What is the advantage of changing?

Good luck, Tony
What if you could save time? What If everyone involved could save time?

I drive about 10 minutes each way to drop off my doe tag apps to be sure they go out when I want them to. That's 20 minutes plus 5 writing the check, filling out the paper app, etc. X 3 tags/rounds. I could save a time by doing it all from my house. If it gave me the same chance of getting a license and I got me tags before the season started, that's an advantage.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,868 Posts
Here you go, I knew this was out there. Turns out it was already here:

On board now?
Failed 6 years ago because it wasnt a improvement. What makes you think its any different now?

As I said before; save money on one envelope only to pay for it on a different envelope and/or pass the extra cost onto the applicant.

Or the applicant can spend more time and money travelling to a store where they get to wait inline.

Good luck, Tony
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,868 Posts
What if you could save time? What If everyone involved could save time?

I drive about 10 minutes each way to drop off my doe tag apps to be sure they go out when I want them to. That's 20 minutes plus 5 writing the check, filling out the paper app, etc. X 3 tags/rounds. I could save a time by doing it all from my house. If it gave me the same chance of getting a license and I got me tags before the season started, that's an advantage.
Postman delivers and picks-up at my home mailbox six days a week, im sure they do the same at your residence, no special trip needed.

Again; not better, not worse, just different.

Good luck, Tony
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,541 Posts
Failed 6 years ago because it wasnt a improvement. What makes you think its any different now?

As I said before; save money on one envelope only to pay for it on a different envelope and/or pass the extra cost onto the applicant.

Or the applicant can spend more time and money travelling to a store where they get to wait inline.

Good luck, Tony
How far you gonna move those goalposts?
You said show how it would save the PGC money and/or enhance or maintain reliability.
Done.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,636 Posts
I don't care one way or the other about this issue, but I'll say this:

There is large and ever growing segment of our society that conduct all business electronically. They don't get a paycheck, they use auto-deposit, and even in the case where they do need to deposit a check, they photograph it with their phone and "deposit" it online. They don't pay bills by mail, they pay them online. They do a large portion of their purchase of goods on-line, and where they must use brick and mortar vendors they don't write checks or use cash, they use their debit or credit cards. The younger generation depend on their devices for conducting all transactions.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,541 Posts
Again! Save money on one envelope only to pay for it on a different envelope and/or pass the extra cost onto the applicant.

Good luck, Tony
So the goalpost moved from saving PGC money to saving all parties money?
I’ll gladly pay an extra buck or three per tag if it gives me a CT-free option and puts even just one of those extra bucks into actual wildlife management spend.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,868 Posts
So the goalpost moved from saving PGC money to saving all parties money?
I’ll gladly pay an extra buck or three per tag if it gives me a CT-free option and puts even just one of those extra bucks into actual wildlife management spend.
Nope, goal post has been firmly planted. If you go back through my posts on the subject you will find this has always been my view on the subject. Cant rob Peter to pay Paul, then claim your saving money

Good luck, Tony
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,541 Posts
Nope, goal post has been firmly planted. If you go back through my posts on the subject you will find this has always been my view on the subject. Cant rob Peter to pay Paul, then claim your saving money

Good luck, Tony
Agree to disagree then. You’ve stated the PGC has never shown it would save them money, which incidentally has been one of your main stuck points on the issue across multiple threads.
I posted that reference, suddenly it’s about saving all parties money… a convenient and impossible bar to achieve, because one could simply argue that any shift in issuing agents will cost the CT’s money by diminishing the volume they process.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,868 Posts
Agree to disagree then. You’ve stated the PGC has never shown it would save them money, which incidentally has been one of your main stuck points on the issue across multiple threads.
I posted that reference, suddenly it’s about saving all parties money… a convenient and impossible bar to achieve, because one could simply argue that any shift in issuing agents will cost the CT’s money by diminishing the volume they process.
Read post #126 of this thread from 6 days ago. Your claims are put to rest there, as they have been in many other posts I have written on the subject.

Again; Cant rob Peter to pay Paul, then claim your saving money.

Good luck, Tony
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,541 Posts
Read post #126 of this thread from 6 days ago. Your claims are put to rest there, as they have been in many other posts I have written on the subject.

Again; Cant rob Peter to pay Paul, then claim your saving money.

Good luck, Tony
If I run a business, and find an alternative process that reduces my expenses when compared to the process it replaces, but increases the cost to my consumers $1 (for example) due to a transaction fee, I absolutely can claim it saves my agency money, which is all the PGC has ever claimed. You made a goal post of saving all parties money, which is an unreasonable bar to set.
For all we know it could result in a wash, where a web fee would be offset as far as the hunter is concerned by not having to spend two stamps and a paper check or MO per envelope.
Additionally, if it’s a bridge or step to offering electronic licenses AND tags, you can’t discount the eventual rollout savings related to print media reduction. (IE, if this is a necessary step in a process evolution that leads to a shift in hunter behavior, where say in 5 years, a sizable percentage of hunters aren’t receiving any printed materials at all, those production costs savings are huge.)

I fail to see how the “Robbing Peter to pay Paul” bit applies
 
221 - 240 of 295 Posts
Top