survey

nfh

nfh

Long Time Member
Messages
7,655
Anyone else get a email about a preference point survey? About raising pref. points application fees to help cover credit card usage.
 
Yes, hope everyone votes for the raise or we will be in the same boat as Colorado... everyone will apply and the odds will go to #####...
 
>Yes, hope everyone votes for the
>raise or we will be
>in the same boat as
>Colorado... everyone will apply and
>the odds will go to
>#####...

Willing to bet the odds will not change much at all. Sorry but even Colorado if we doubled the total number of people applying your odds will not be signficantly less. For sheep, goats, moose etc. Colorado odds might shift from .003% chance to .0015%. Statistically no real change in draw odds.
 
So the $15.00 application fee doesn't cover the charge? Just another thing that makes you go hmmmm
 
>>Yes, hope everyone votes for the
>>raise or we will be
>>in the same boat as
>>Colorado... everyone will apply and
>>the odds will go to
>>#####...
>
>Willing to bet the odds will
>not change much at all.
>Sorry but even Colorado if
>we doubled the total number
>of people applying your odds
>will not be signficantly less.
>For sheep, goats, moose etc.
>Colorado odds might shift from
>.003% chance to .0015%. Statistically
>no real change in draw
>odds.
>
So elks your telling me if twice as many people apply because they don't have to pay upfront the odds won't dramatically change? Not sure where you get your stats...
 
I got the survey as well.

I don't have an issue with their proposals.

I have 23 points for sheep now. I don't think more applicants will affect me. Maybe I'll draw before I hit 80. NOT.

WGFD's revenue issues could be easily taken care of if the tight-a$$ed residents would agree to some tag increases. It never ceases to amaze me that guys who drive $50k pickups while pulling $40K trailers with a couple side by sides on another trailer for a caboose whine like stuck hogs when their license fees go up by $10-$15. Good Hell...we pay more for a freakin' tank of gas than we do for an elk license!!
 
>I got the survey as well.
>
>
>I don't have an issue with
>their proposals.
>
>I have 23 points for sheep
>now. I don't think more
>applicants will affect me. Maybe
>I'll draw before I hit
>80. NOT.
>
>WGFD's revenue issues could be easily
>taken care of if the
>tight-a$$ed residents would agree to
>some tag increases. It never
>ceases to amaze me that
>guys who drive $50k pickups
>while pulling $40K trailers with
>a couple side by sides
>on another trailer for a
>caboose whine like stuck hogs
>when their license fees go
>up by $10-$15. Good Hell...we
>pay more for a freakin'
>tank of gas than we
>do for an elk license!!
>

Nontypical.
I agree with you 100%, and I'm totally in favor of paying 285 for a resident limited elk tag like Utah and cutting the non resident tags too 10%....

Get a ballet and let me sign,
 
I received the survey email and took it this AM. I have no idea how anyone can say that the odds won't be affected negatively since any time more apply for a tag for any reason, including because they don't have to pay the actual license fee up front the draw odds will be affected. That is probably the decision the G&F will make though because it will be a simple, easy way for them to eliminate all the money the G&F is spending on CC fees to refund money to those who don't draw the way they do it now.
 
>WGFD's revenue issues could be easily
>taken care of if the
>tight-a$$ed residents would agree to
>some tag increases. It never
>ceases to amaze me that
>guys who drive $50k pickups
>while pulling $40K trailers with
>a couple side by sides
>on another trailer for a
>caboose whine like stuck hogs
>when their license fees go
>up by $10-$15. Good Hell...we
>pay more for a freakin'
>tank of gas than we
>do for an elk license!!
>

Cliff, I have a lot of trouble believing it's resident hunters that are keeping license fees low. I have been down there in Cheyenne when legislators do everything possible to charge more for NR and keep resident fees down. One year there were two license fee increase bills and they chose the one only increasing NR fees! And they do it without hearing from many people but the WYOGA bunch. WYOGA wants NR fees as high as possible and resident fees low to keep the emphasis that NR pay the majority of license revenue, so they will keep getting high tag allocations.

By far, the majority of residents I know are willing to pay more.
 
I'm a NR and I took the survey last night.
It didn't take very long, I only got through three questions and said I was done? When asked if I ever used PP, I assumed it meant in Wyoming and I selected no. End of survey! lmao
Hopefully that will change this year, and I'll finally get to use some in ?Wyoming?
They might want to specify for Wyoming, or anywhere?
Btw...
Question two, I voted for the fees!!!
 
>Yes, hope everyone votes for the
>raise or we will be
>in the same boat as
>Colorado... everyone will apply and
>the odds will go to
>#####...

Heed these words!

#livelikezac
 
LAST EDITED ON May-12-18 AT 11:14PM (MST)[p]

If you don't use Wyoming PP's there isn't much point in asking if you understand how they work.
 
What question # was that, I didn't get to that question...
I've never drawn a tag in ?Wyoming?, so I've never used them ?there?!
 
Same thing happened to me. I'm not sure exactly what was meant by "have you used points?" I'm in the process of building up points for deer and antelope for future hunts, so I haven't used them yet. But, it seems odd that I don't get to finish the survey because I answered no to that question.
 
LAST EDITED ON May-13-18 AT 10:09AM (MST)[p]The question should have been rephrased to "have you purchased preference points". That portion of the survey deals with the customers understanding of how they work and when they can be used.

The avg non resident seems to have trouble understanding the process so the dept is looking to eliminate all the options. If points could only be purchased after the draw, the "if I buy a point is it good for this years draw" phone calls go away.
 
Thanks WapitiBob!
I'm sure they would like it if they quit getting the phone calls ?can I still buy a point if I got one from not drawing a tag?...
I know, back when I first started building points, I tried that one. Lol
I understand how preference points work, so I guess I'm an above average NR;)
I am just curious what the overall survey was about? Fee hikes, payment process, reducing phone calls, all of the above?
What were the other 21 questions about?
I'm sure it is all for the greater good!
 
>Thanks WapitiBob!
>I'm sure they would like it
>if they quit getting the
>phone calls ?can I still
>buy a point if I
>got one from not drawing
>a tag?...
>I know, back when I first
>started building points, I tried
>that one. Lol
>I understand how preference points work,
>so I guess I'm an
>above average NR;)
>I am just curious what the
>overall survey was about? Fee
>hikes, payment process, reducing phone
>calls, all of the above?
>
>What were the other 21 questions
>about?
>I'm sure it is all for
>the greater good!


It appeared the main reason for the survey was to see if people know how the PP system works, what animals you can buy and use PPs for, and especially if people are willing to pay the percentage charged for using a CC instead of the G&F paying it. Just by the G&F not charging a CC for the license fee until after the draw for only the successful applicants will save over a million dollars.
 
Took the survey, I voted no fee increase and this is why:

To me why can't the department send out a refund check instead of cc refunds? They used to do that even when you used your cc to apply. I garentee it would not take 1.5 million dollars for the State to issue those checks.

Once they increase the cost of applying you'll always pay that, it will never be reduced and I'm tiered of these states nickel and diming us.

The fact that upfront fees be eliminated unless you draw isn't going to increase the applications because if a guy can't pay for a non-res tag when applying then he isn't going to be able to afford one when he draws. Besides Credit cards are just borrowed money anyway so why wouldn't people just apply now knowing they will get a refund? They do and are applying so it's not going to increase the applications.

Another thing to understand is the survey also asked about eliminating the July-Oct point buying period. And move that up so people would have to apply to gain a point. This is what will increase applications and if they just choose a point only than the same number of people will actually apply for a hunt.

The cost of non-res tags are the reason people won't apply because it's getting expensive. Then you have the 2 year period where if you fail to apply you loose the points you've accumulated. I hope you all chose to keep that to 2 years rather than 5. Reward the consistency of applying and drop those that are casual applicants and you will always be one step ahead of the next guy.

These states are looking for revenue and the way I see it it's like taxes always increasing and once they have your money it's near impossible to cut that revenue stream.

So no more non-refundable fees enough already.
 
Some good guesses going on here and some wrong assumptions, mostly due to a poorly asked question on the survey. But what's new when it comes to G&F surveys?

Two reasons for this survey:

1) to see what people prefer between paying service fee for using the credit card or or just paying the application fee upfront and license after drawn.

2) changing preference points being lost when not applied for from two to five years or never losing them at all without drawing a license.

They won't be going back to issuing warrants for sure and they won't be bearing the costs of the credit card use.

And Bob, the reason I think they asked if you had ever used preference points, is because a resident doesn't have to pay for them if they apply for the license. Residents are getting the survey too and asking if you ever payed for them might drop their sample # too low.
 
Jeff- There sure was plenty of grumbling around these parts when that first license fee increase was proposed a few years back. Of course, the dept had gotten fairly fat back then and lots of trimming was done in various areas to get the budget back under control( which I agreed with), so no fees were increased at that time. Lots of folks around here don't want to see any more increases.

For instance; at the meeting here the other night, there was a fellow complaining that fishing licenses should cost more( to make more dept revenue?). His reasoning was that you buy one license and fish 365 days; meanwhile, a hunting license only entitles you to hunt during whatever season; and costs more. Sound reasoning, but it sure seemed like he was more concerned about having to pay more to hunt than he was about gaining more revenue for the dept. I fish a lot, and don't even know what a license costs. I'm buying one. Period. Lots of folks feel the same as me, but just as many don't want to see any more increases for whatever reason.

Interesting aspect of WYOGA being behind that though...
 
>For instance; at the meeting here
>the other night, there was
>a fellow complaining that fishing
>licenses should cost more( to
>make more dept revenue?). His
>reasoning was that you buy
>one license and fish 365
>days; meanwhile, a hunting license
>only entitles you to hunt
>during whatever season; and costs
>more. Sound reasoning, but it
>sure seemed like he was
>more concerned about having to
>pay more to hunt than
>he was about gaining more
>revenue for the dept. I
>fish a lot, and don't
>even know what a license
>costs. I'm buying one. Period.
>Lots of folks feel the
>same as me, but just
>as many don't want to
>see any more increases for
>whatever reason.
>
>Interesting aspect of WYOGA being behind
>that though...

Nontypical,

If you are referring to the meeting in GR then I am the one that brought up the cost of the fishing license. You are incorrect in assuming that I am concerned about paying more for an elk tag. If increased funding to the department is needed, I would support doubling the current resident tag fees. Heck, I would not balk at tripling them. My point with even bringing up fishing license costs was that every time G&F revenue is brought up all that is thought of is increasing hunting license and PP fees, in particular elk and deer fees. When in reality, sport fishing is by far the biggest underfunded division in the G&F from license fees. It appears to me that the legislature likes to use NR elk and deer tags and PP fees so that us residents can have super cheap fishing licenses. Elk management is paid for by department revenue with $4,000,000 left over. Mule deer is more than paid for by department revenue. Pronghorn is more than paid for. Sport fishing management runs a deficit of $8,000,000. Sport fishing in Wyo draws 2.7M recreation days and generates $6.6M in license revenue. Elk hunting in Wyo draws 473K recreation days and generates $9.7M in license revenue. Mule deer draws 261K recreation days and generates $8.6M in license revenue. This all seems very lopsided, particularly when we talk about raising elk tags fees to generate more revenue.

If you recall the two outfitters sitting in the crowd both tried to emphasize how much NR elk license fees bring into the department. These were the same two that showed up in Pinedale and they got far more traction with the crowd there with the idea that NR allocation should be increased because NR bring so much more to the party than do resident tag fees. I was also the one that mentioned revenue generation should not be the deciding factor in how licenses are allocated since these are not "the kings deer" and pocket book size should not determine your draw odds. But it keeps coming up. Even the G&F felt compelled to put two slides in their presentation to show us residents just how lopsided the revenue from licenses is between resident and nonresident hunters.

My whole point with this rant was that if increased funding to the G&F is needed it is not needed to manage elk. I am not sure why those that decide to hunt elk, MD and pronghorn need to be the ones to fund the other species. I hope that clarifies my position.
 
I believe that at least one thing stated by Broomer was incorrect in his post. He mentioned eliminating the July-Oct period to buy a PP only and requiring that it be bought during the application period only. As I remember the survey, it was just the opposite and that by not offering the PP option during the application period it would eliminate all the phone calls by people asking when the PP is good. I know this comes up fairly often by new people thinking the PP they buy is good for the same year and even some think they can buy one then and another during the application only period. The G&F will definitely not go back to issuing paper checks with all that is involved in that old way. IMHO using a CC for the ease of applying for licenses like we do now should require that the applicant pay the fee and not the G&F. It's not that much for the individual, but it adds up to over a million dollars for the G&F if they pay for all of them.
 
Steve

If you wouldn't have brought it up, I was going to. Plain and simple, big game license fees are partially funding our fishing program in Wyoming! It makes perfect sense to raise license fees for fishing, the problem is every little increase requires legislative approval.
 
I got the survey and don't feel this increase would effect odds at all. The increase in my understanding would only effect the cost of an application but wouldn't change the cost of simply buying points each year. I'm not in favor of giving credit card companies anymore money than they already get.
 
Colorado went to a "charge the card after successful draw" theory. Their applications for Rocky Mtn Bighorns went from 17,000 to 40,000. An increase of 23,000. Just for one species.

If WY goes to a similar system then odds of drawing for residents and non-residents will become much harder and waits to draw will be longer. I vote to pay a little more by paying upfront and hunt more.
 
Crazy!!!
I'm glad I'm at the top end of the curve, because if they change it, this could likely be, and a lot more applicants, last chance to hunt a ?top? unit in Wyoming. (At least for NR)
If it comes down to it...
Money up front still, and fees on returns.
 
>Colorado went to a "charge the
>card after successful draw" theory.
> Their applications for Rocky
>Mtn Bighorns went from 17,000
>to 40,000. An increase
>of 23,000. Just for
>one species.
>
>If WY goes to a similar
>system then odds of drawing
>for residents and non-residents will
>become much harder and waits
>to draw will be longer.
> I vote to pay
>a little more by paying
>upfront and hunt more.


I hope elks96 reads your post!
 
We worry about recruitment then look for ways to keep new hunters out so current odds aren't affected.

Sounds like a solid plan.
 
I don't think it will have as much effect as it did in Colorado and here?s why. In Wyoming you could always purchase preference points after the drawing for the regular PP fee. This was never the case in CO. You had to pay the full license price just to obtain a point until this year. I think it will have some effect just not as drastic as CO. And yes I voted to pay full license fee upfront. Just my .02 worth.
 
>We worry about recruitment then look
>for ways to keep new
>hunters out so current odds
>aren't affected.
>
>Sounds like a solid plan.

When I said we needed to increase hunter recruitment, I didn't mean in the units I apply for, in the State I like and for the species I like to hunt. I meant all the other units.
 
>We worry about recruitment then look
>for ways to keep new
>hunters out so current odds
>aren't affected.
>
>Sounds like a solid plan.


Have to disagree with you on this one Bob! If a person doesn't have the money to pay up front when they apply, then IMHO they have no business applying at all.
 
As a NR I appreciate my surrounding states giving me an opportunity to hunt THEIR animals. So if they need the money, ill support that.

CC fees are real. I had a card reader for my business, it charged 2.75% per swipe. That cuts into the profit.

My only point is this, Wyoming should beware their neighbor to the sw is watching and I'm sure will be over pounding NR soon like is being done in Wyoming. At some point we are all NR.




From the party of HUNTIN, FISHIN, PUBLIC LAND.
 
LAST EDITED ON May-15-18 AT 08:54PM (MST)[p]
Here's the problem with Colorado going to an app fee up front only.
Sheep applicants went from 17,739 last year to 40,993 this year and goat went from 12,095 last year to 33,411 this year. I expect the number of applicants to increase again next year when these new applicants each tell two friends. Next month we will find out about deer elk and Antelope. I'm not expecting it to double or triple the number of applicants like sheep and goat but the increase will be significant, and point creep will increase exponentially! To be forewarned is to be forearmed!


#livelikezac
 
Can?t argue with those numbers but what's really interesting is why did so many people jump on the train in Colorado once they eliminated the upfront fee?

Take Nevada for example, it's been app fee and hunting license on CC for as long as I've applied. For about $200-300 bucks a year you can apply for all species sheep and goat (until the die off)

Take Arizona as well, app fee and hunting license and you can apply for basically all species. About $2-300 bucks.

The odds are not good but what are the numbers of applicants in those states compared to Colorado? Someone hopefully will research that.

Wyoming was until this year about $300 bucks to gain/build points for all species. The fact that it's preference for the most part people are just building points. When they get close to having enough they will jump into the draws.

Utah isn't quite that much but close couple hundred bucks a year.

Colorado is 100% preference but you had to apply to gain a point. Another thing is for sheep/goat/moose you have to get 3 years of applying to even be eligible for a tag.

I bet that number stabilizes over the next few years because there aren't 40,000 non-residents that will be consistent in applying.

I like the 2 year period and you loose the points in Wyoming because I think it will get a lot of guys who forget and then before they know it it's gone.

Colorado on the other hand has a 5 year period before you loose points.

What if Wyoming puts Mt Goats into the point category? They will make thousands of new money in points.

I'd like to see all these states eventually go back to a lottery like Idaho and NM. These points will get so out of reach they won't have a choose.
 
LAST EDITED ON May-15-18 AT 10:54PM (MST)[p]>Can?t argue with those numbers but
>what's really interesting is why
>did so many people jump
>on the train in Colorado
>once they eliminated the upfront
>fee?
>


Because now for $31 residents and non-residents alike can apply for all seven species. When before they had to come up with a pretty sizeable chunk of money to get in the drawing and gain points by having to pay for the license up front. A non-resident sheep moose or goat tag is $2,200. $250 for a resident.






>Take Nevada for example, it's been
>app fee and hunting license
>on CC for as long
>as I've applied. For about
>$200-300 bucks a year you
>can apply for all species
>sheep and goat (until the
>die off)
>
>Take Arizona as well, app fee
>and hunting license and you
>can apply for basically all
>species. About $2-300 bucks.
>
>The odds are not good but
>what are the numbers of
>applicants in those states compared
>to Colorado? Someone hopefully will
>research that.
>
>Wyoming was until this year about
>$300 bucks to gain/build points
>for all species. The fact
>that it's preference for the
>most part people are just
>building points. When they get
>close to having enough they
>will jump into the draws.
>
>
>Utah isn't quite that much but
>close couple hundred bucks a
>year.
>
>Colorado is 100% preference but you
>had to apply to gain
>a point. Another thing is
>for sheep/goat/moose you have to
>get 3 years of applying
>to even be eligible for
>a tag.
>
>I bet that number stabilizes over
>the next few years because
>there aren't 40,000 non-residents
>that will be consistent in
>applying.
>
>
This is the first year they did this. When these thousands of new applicants each tell two friends it's going to get worse next year and the year after.

#livelikezac
 
Many people dont understand the cost of running a buisness, and yes it is a business. They have to make money to keep doing what they are doing.

I own a business and the cost of credit cards cast me $30,000 a year. 15 years ago that was less than $5,000. This is a fast food joint. There is talk about charging the customer the cost of the CC use fee. I am all for it. But here in Utah, that has not quite happened yet. Back east, it is happening. So to have to pay the fee for CC use is no big deal to me. It is only fair.

For example:

Combo #1 = $10
tax = .78
CC fee is .30
Total = $11.08

So they could do something like that.
 
I don't see the comparison with the change in Colorado. Before this year in Colorado you had to purchase everything to put in or just get a point in Colorado. While in Wyoming you've always been able to just pay the fee and buy a point there's a big difference.
 
LAST EDITED ON May-16-18 AT 05:21PM (MST)[p]Maybe not a comparison, but there would definitely be a big increase in applicants!
Here?s how I see it, because I did it in Colorado...
I'm sure a lot of guys can afford to apply for some of these tags, but don't, due to ?keeping the peace? at home. I hear it every year, all this money out, ?but babe, I'm not going to draw, so it will be coming back in a couple months) she gets over it...
My wife?s very understanding for the most part, but another $3-$4,000 out, on top of the $3-$4,000 already out, was a bit much for her to understand, so I compromised.
Happy wife, happy life!!!
See, it's easier to ask forgiveness, then permission, especially with a tag in hand!
Lol???
But really, another factor is the possibility of a random draw in Wyoming, not so in Colorado!
Don?t have to put the money upfront, and a chance to draw a tag...
There will be a lot more then there is now!!!
 
>Here's the problem with Colorado going
>to an app fee up
>front only.
>Sheep applicants went from 17,739 last
>year to 40,993 this year


yes, 23000 more people applied, but 19050 of them did points only. In a few years, most will drop out. 8600 of the new points only applicants were resident, and about 8100 nonresident. Then a couple thousand youths total.
I guess what I'm getting at is that most of these people likely will have no intention of actually hunting sheep or goats, and they will be mostly out of the picture in 3 years. Not to hijack this thread, so...

For Wyoming: One still must pay for points, which are expensive for non-residents, and residents still enjoy excellent odds on most hunts compared to residents in other states, and can pick up general tags OTC. The apps will go up, but it will look more like NV, AZ, or UT, but with better overall draw picture (LOTS more tags). I don't think the credit card companies need any of our money, or the WGFD's money, so I supported going to application fee up front, and license fee later. I also supported lengthening the gap before losing points because of youth hunters losing points after a year or two of lack of interest when mom and dad don't see the point. Happened to me, and I didn't get back into the game until I was in my mid-20s.

And sure, make fishing more expensive, or add a fishing license to every non-resident big game tag like Colorado did. Still people complaining about that one a few years down the line.
 
The economy doing better is a big factor in increased nonresident hunter applications in multiple states. When the economy took a dive a few years ago it seemed to improve my odds of drawing tags.
 
>The economy doing better is a
>big factor in increased nonresident
>hunter applications in multiple states.
>When the economy took a
>dive a few years ago
>it seemed to improve my
>odds of drawing tags.


The 25+% drop in gas prices also helped attract more guys that are many miles from the western states.
 

Similar threads

S&L Gunsmith
Leupold 3-18x44 VX-6HD Riflescope, Matte Black with Illuminated Impact-29 MOA Reticle
Replies
4
Views
624
elkassassin
elkassassin
Bux n Dux
ISO: LE pronghorn points holder
Replies
7
Views
709
JakeH
JakeH
Founder
Trophy Whitetail Hunts in Kansas and Indiana
Replies
0
Views
552
Founder
Founder

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

20211010_101044.jpg
HUNT0603 - Copy1.JPG
E23F4897-8D88-49A6-AA75-93AC8613EBFF.jpeg
2.jpg
467FF615-B133-433B-BABB-05568E3A9880.jpeg
B3803740-7903-48F1-8988-1E5861C784B9.jpeg
128169908_10157881520823177_4270984854287575787_o.jpg
Big Bull Elk for StraightSix
Screenshot_20211126-231927_Gallery.jpg
588701C0-C12B-45BF-BC73-B755A0A77030.jpeg
IMG_20151027_091036.jpeg
4E8B146B-4A19-47B4-AE91-B6DF57D11875.jpeg

Wyoming Hunting Guides & Outfitters

Badger Creek Outfitters

Offering elk, deer and pronghorn hunts on several privately owned ranches.

Urge 2 Hunt

We focus on trophy elk, mule deer, antelope and moose hunts and take B&C bucks most years.

J & J Outfitters

Offering quality fair-chase hunts for trophy mule deer, elk, and moose in Wyoming.


Yellowstone Horse Rentals - Western Wyoming Horses
Back
Top Bottom