I have zero issue with blind selling. Yeah its public land but if I draw a blind I have options. I can sell it or I can hunt it. Why limit an individuals options and a free market? If one individual values that blind more than me, why shouldnt I have the option to sell it and he have the option to buy it? Jealousy is the main reason why blind selling is seen as taboo. Point blank.
Selling of duck blinds...
- Thread starter Polecat
- Start date
The problem with selling is that it decreases a genuine hunters chance of actually drawing a blind, it creates a lottery with better chances than a scratch off so it attracts non hunters to the drawing
Chances go down a lot more because of these gigantic groups that have people in them that arent going to hunt than random Joes trying to get lucky on a lottery ticket. The blinds that get sold end up going to genuine hunters either way.
It is also illegal to buy or SELL the WMA duck blinds.
It has always been interesting to watch what laws folks want to ignore or be enforced.
It has always been interesting to watch what laws folks want to ignore or be enforced.
Headhunter
Well-Known Member
I guess why is the question. Would it be illegal to sell gps coordinates for fishing? Would it be illegal to sell gps coordinates to a hunting spot on a WMA? To me if someone is stupid enough to pay the kind of money I would want for a duck blind I drew, they could have it. I would get enough money to go hunt Arkansas, South Dakota, etc.
I have not went to a blind drawing in a long time (if the duck migration routes change, I believe that is the main issue for the lack of ducks in middle Tennessee, I will start trying to draw again, well NOT if these proposals are passed I won't) but mainly because the TWRA could not police what was there, and that is not really TWRA law enforcement fault, they are understaffed and have been forever. But now they are going to police these few day permits, no blind hopping, and whatever else is included in this stupid crazy proposal?
The last blind I drew, I spent a couple weeks repairing, brushing, etc. only for someone to come cut most of the brush off, steal decoys, break open locked steel box and rob from it, etc. And now the TWRA is planning on building and maintaining blinds?
I still don't see why anyone cares if someone sells a blind they drew. I do not think it is right when people who never hunt, don't plan to hunt, don't want to hunt, etc. participate in the drawing. Since the TWRA only CARES about money and that sells more licenses is most likely why they have never really tried to do anything about that. Just like these stupid proposals, something that they think will make more money.
Last edited:
flyinpro
Well-Known Member
That's one of the things that caused me to quit trying to draw a blind. Selling them. it's against the law.
Maybe the TWRA Should raffle a few off and use the money for the habitat.
Maybe the TWRA Should raffle a few off and use the money for the habitat.
law is law but at the same time, I've never seen much enforcement of the blind selling law. I'm not saying all blinds sold but there's no way in hades TWRA doesn't know some blinds have been sold or the request was to made to cardholder to buy the blind. The last 6-8 years, some offers made have been anything but subtle. Personal opinion only but a law is only as good as it's enforced.
They will never control selling of blinds.it will always happen.
Now that's not a bad idea.
TWRA has made a couple of random cases on it, but, for the most part, has had no effective enforcement of that regulation. And, yes, they are very well aware it is going on.
I was part of multiple discussions on trying to come up with something to enforce it. Those discussions involved the county district attorneys at times as well. Bottom line, it is almost next to impossible to have sufficient evidence to win in court unless someone is REALLY dumb. You can't prosecute just because you "KNOW" something unless you have the evidence to win in court. It was one of the more frustrating things that I saw the agency LE Div. deal with.
I can promise you that TWRA did not at any point intentionally turn a blind eye to it.
Crosshairy
Well-Known Member
I think when you are drawing for a chance to *hunt a blind*, then the folks that are willing to hunt it will be the only ones to apply.
When you are drawing for a chance at a thing of fairly significant value ($10k, let's say) with no work involved, it attracts a different (larger) crowd because there is no equity involved from those involved. Generally, that equity is sweat, skill, money, and time.
Season-long draw hunts on public land are a genuinely rare thing - the comparison to fishing spots makes no sense, as there is no quota for boats fishing major reservoirs, so the supply equation is not even comparable. By allowing that opportunity to be sold, it moves that experience from a way to win an adventure for someone of limited means to a way for a mass of folks to win a small windfall of cash. It steals chances for those without the cash to pay for guide services from being able to hunt the public land that their licenses/stamps help pay for.
The net effect of all of this is that those with money win (even more). We have a chance to make something more pure and democratic, but then we have been contaminating it with what is essentially bribery ("Hey, I'll pay you to break the law and look the other way").
There are better ways of managing this problem than the current proposal - I think we can all agree on that. But there are definite winners and losers with the selling of blinds. The winners are anyone who's willing to pay per hunt to sit in a blind and not do any hard work, and the guides who have found a way to avoid leasing private property by getting a spot on public land. The losers are everyone else who wants a chance to do that same hunt themselves but could never buy the opportunity away from the soccer mom/dad or the parent of the 8-year-old whose name got drawn out of the hat instead of a legitimate hunter.
I don't agree with chopping some of these "advanced-experience-required" hunting spots into 3-day hunts, but I also think that the season-long draws should be for actual hunters only.
When you are drawing for a chance at a thing of fairly significant value ($10k, let's say) with no work involved, it attracts a different (larger) crowd because there is no equity involved from those involved. Generally, that equity is sweat, skill, money, and time.
Season-long draw hunts on public land are a genuinely rare thing - the comparison to fishing spots makes no sense, as there is no quota for boats fishing major reservoirs, so the supply equation is not even comparable. By allowing that opportunity to be sold, it moves that experience from a way to win an adventure for someone of limited means to a way for a mass of folks to win a small windfall of cash. It steals chances for those without the cash to pay for guide services from being able to hunt the public land that their licenses/stamps help pay for.
The net effect of all of this is that those with money win (even more). We have a chance to make something more pure and democratic, but then we have been contaminating it with what is essentially bribery ("Hey, I'll pay you to break the law and look the other way").
There are better ways of managing this problem than the current proposal - I think we can all agree on that. But there are definite winners and losers with the selling of blinds. The winners are anyone who's willing to pay per hunt to sit in a blind and not do any hard work, and the guides who have found a way to avoid leasing private property by getting a spot on public land. The losers are everyone else who wants a chance to do that same hunt themselves but could never buy the opportunity away from the soccer mom/dad or the parent of the 8-year-old whose name got drawn out of the hat instead of a legitimate hunter.
I don't agree with chopping some of these "advanced-experience-required" hunting spots into 3-day hunts, but I also think that the season-long draws should be for actual hunters only.
The only way they'll ever stop the selling is to make it where only card holders can hunt it Someone in the blind has to have a card. But technically even that couldn't stop it from being sold But it could possibly help with some of the over hunting/pressure people keep mentioning
Southern Sportsman
Well-Known Member
I don't get too worked up over buying/selling blinds. But, if the state really wanted to stop it, I think it would be the easiest thing in the world to stop. Have a TWRA officer from another county (or a sheriff's deputy, or an intern, or anyone they choose) hang out with the crowd. The TWRA officer running the draw pulls the first card but calls out a number that was intentionally left out of the barrel. The plain clothes officer yells and waives with excitement and starts towards the stage slowly, listening carefully to each offer he receives. When he gets to the stage, on-duty officers walk up and put handcuffs on everybody that offered to buy the blind. Then the head officer announces "everyone was warned that it is illegal to buy, sell, or offer to buy or sell these blinds. We are going to enforce the law."
He could then read out the real first number and there would be exactly zero offers made to the lucky winner.
Or, they could just nuke the whole system and replace it with a computer draw, 4-tier hybrid system of year-long/agency-built/blindless spot/boat hunt locations that nobody likes or asked for.
I don't know that the offer to buy a blind is a arrestable offence. It is probably more of a ticket on the spot. But it is still words and at best an offer to buy witch is probably not much of anything if you take it to court.
That could have been done.
And then, every drawing after that would be claimed to be "rigged" if it didn't go right for folks. That cure was worse than the disease.
Trust me, a lot of thought was given to addressing the issue. Having something a judge would convict on was difficult.
The computer draw probably won't totally stop it, but, it will make it more difficult to do.
Headhunter
Well-Known Member
I still don't hear why it is illegal to sell, rent, etc. a blind that was drawn. So long the drawing system is fair, who cares if someone sells it, rents it, etc. after it is drawn?
I don't agree with the people being able to put in for the draw who ONLY put in to get drawn, have ZERO intention of hunting. I believe the people that do buy "chances to draw" though are going to hunt, not sell the blind.
Someone wanting to buy or rent a blind or spot, who cares or why care? Once a blind is drawn it is yours. So long the "draw process" itself is fair and not "rigged" in anyway at all, what matters what happens to a blind after it is drawn? TWRA just mad it isn't getting that money? What is the reason it is illegal?
Do you think even with a 3, 5 or 7 day draw (absolutely dumbest, waste of time and money ever proposed) that people will not buy one of those draws if the ducks are there? That is the only reason I can think of to buy a draw, a better chance to kill ducks.
Are there really people who never hunt, have no intention of hunting, attempting to draw blinds just to sell them? I can remember hearing that someone is rich and buys a lot of people licenses to up there chances of being drawn, but that was to get a blind to hunt, not to sell it.
Anyone got an answer as to why selling of blinds is illegal?
I don't agree with the people being able to put in for the draw who ONLY put in to get drawn, have ZERO intention of hunting. I believe the people that do buy "chances to draw" though are going to hunt, not sell the blind.
Someone wanting to buy or rent a blind or spot, who cares or why care? Once a blind is drawn it is yours. So long the "draw process" itself is fair and not "rigged" in anyway at all, what matters what happens to a blind after it is drawn? TWRA just mad it isn't getting that money? What is the reason it is illegal?
Do you think even with a 3, 5 or 7 day draw (absolutely dumbest, waste of time and money ever proposed) that people will not buy one of those draws if the ducks are there? That is the only reason I can think of to buy a draw, a better chance to kill ducks.
Are there really people who never hunt, have no intention of hunting, attempting to draw blinds just to sell them? I can remember hearing that someone is rich and buys a lot of people licenses to up there chances of being drawn, but that was to get a blind to hunt, not to sell it.
Anyone got an answer as to why selling of blinds is illegal?
Southern Sportsman
Well-Known Member
1) There were absolutely, without question, many, many people who went to the drawings, with no intention of ever hunting there, just hoping to get drawn to make a few thousand dollars on a Saturday morning.
2) number 1 is a big part of number two. Private land is expensive. Private leases are expensive. But a cornerstone of America's outdoor heritage and wildlife conservation (outside of Texas) is the concept of wild animals held in public trust and anyone, rich or poor, can hunt them on public land. Buy your license and you have the same opportunity to hunt there as anyone else. Buying and selling blinds upends that system. Drawing a year-long blind effectively privatizes that spot for that year. That can be tolerated to an extent because everyone should have an equal chance to draw the spot. But buying and selling just highlights the inherent flaw in the system - opportunities to hunt public land being sold to the highest bidder. Which incentivizes applications just hoping to sell. Which reduces draw odds and results in public land being controlled by the wealthy.
Imagine if coveted western big game tags were fully transferrable. The market value for those tags is hundreds of thousands of dollars, as evidenced by the "governor's tags" sold each year to fund conservation. No matter how genuinely you want to hunt a bighorn sheep or a top-tier elk unit, if someone offers $100,000-$250,000 for your tag, very few people could afford to turn it down. People with no intentions of hunting would apply with hopes of making a fortune, and the end result would be only multi-millionaires hunting with those coveted tags — which is fundamentally the opposite of what public land opportunities are supposed to be.
Selling duck blinds is just a lower cost version of that.
Last edited:
Southern Sportsman
Well-Known Member
I trust you if you say efforts were made to come up with an enforcement solution. But I don't follow the logic of not using a "sting" type approach for fear of future unsuccessful people claiming that the system is rigged. I've heard people complain about the system being rigged all my life anyway. (To be clear, I have never once agreed with that conspiracy theory).
Headhunter
Well-Known Member
I kind of see your point, but if someone draws the permit in a completely fair draw, I don't care where or what the tag or draw is for, unless the law says it is non transferrable, I don't care what they do with it. There is a reason why we supposedly live in a free country, well we used to.
And it seems to me all they have to do is make duck blind draws non transferrable. People can still blind hop, but "ownership" belongs to who drew it and those that signed on. To me it would be hard to sell if you can't claim the blind as your own.
Actually how does that currently happen anyway? When a blind is sold, does the buyer become the "owner" as if he drew the blind?
Seems like that would be easy to enforce.
And it seems to me all they have to do is make duck blind draws non transferrable. People can still blind hop, but "ownership" belongs to who drew it and those that signed on. To me it would be hard to sell if you can't claim the blind as your own.
Actually how does that currently happen anyway? When a blind is sold, does the buyer become the "owner" as if he drew the blind?
Seems like that would be easy to enforce.
