Wyoming credit card fees

prizes14

prizes14

Member
Messages
56
Can a person apply in Wyoming by mail to avoid the credit card processing fees? Applying for a bighorn sheep costs $2300+ so the credit card fee (2.5%) is $58. Is this refunded when you don't draw a permit?

I'm having a hard time spending over $200 with the added credit card fee for such a small chance of drawing.
 
They stopped doing paper applications a few years ago. So now it's only credit cards online. If you don't draw a tag wyoming doesn't give back the cc fees. Yeah it's a bummer for sure.
 
At some point they're going to wean applicants off . unless you have enough points to see light at the end of the tunnel it's really hard to justify.


The bison tag is a rip off anyway I'm done with that. goat I haven't decided, t's going to cost a lot for such a slim chance at drawing and no points. but it might up the draw odds.


It's still a better deal than MT gives us if that makes you feel any better.







Stay Thirsty My Friends
 
Just an FYI...attended a meeting today and the GF Director stated that license applications were up about 20% last year.

The fee increase didn't scare anyone away.

Secondly, the only species that had less applicants were moose and bison, the rest increased, including sheep and goat.

I don't see the cc fee keeping many people from applying.
 
What many don't realize is that the CC fee goes to the CC Company and not the G&F that's been paying it until now because it amounts to over a million dollars and something had to give sooner or later. Also higher CC fees than that are built into most products and services that we put on a CC and because it isn't out in the open like this one is we don't complain.
 
>Just an FYI...attended a meeting today
>and the GF Director stated
>that license applications were up
>about 20% last year.
>
>The fee increase didn't scare anyone
>away.
>
>Secondly, the only species that had
>less applicants were moose and
>bison, the rest increased, including
>sheep and goat.
>
>I don't see the cc fee
>keeping many people from applying.
>

Has there been any explanation of this? 20% is WAY above any conceivable demographic shift, and against a national backdrop of declining hunters (or so I thought). So what gives? And was WY an anomaly or is this occurring in other western states too. Maybe the economy really is just that good???
 
Too bad they won't take an e-check.

And the 2.5% charge doesn't seem like much, but it sure adds up on whoever is paying for it.

This is just my anecdotal evidence, but I think applications may have increased because people who have been buying points are wanting to get out of the game. I know that is the case for some in my family and circle of friends. I always thought I was pretty hardcore, but they whole game of applying in many states is taking its toll.
 
I would guess they didn't segregate license apps vs points for that 20% and the increase is new blood. No downside to apply in WY if you're new or you've been hunting another state.
 
I am fortunate to be in the position of not having to worry too much about fees and expenses related to applying. That said I am still smart about how I utilize my money and try not to waste money on applications that I have an extremely low chance of drawing. I will not apply for sheep or mountain goat any longer so your odds just went up 0.001%. I am not complaining about the fees I just simply will choose not to pay them. Even if half the people stop applying your odds are silly. Stop and think about how many people would have to stop applying for it to really give you a reasonable chance to draw a tag - in other words if you are excited about people dropping out you might want to research this a little.

My family makes a pretty good living and I cannot believe that there are so many people willing to spend that kind of money for such an extremely low chance of drawing a tag. I consider anything that has a 1% chance of drawing or better to have at least a possible chance. When you start to talk about 0.1% and lower that is just not reasonable to me.

I will just focus on elk, deer, antelope, and moose because of the points I have. I may just draw a cow moose tag soon, have a fun hunt, and get out of that too.

I am all for the wildlife departments of these states doing what they need to do to make sure they have the funds necessary to protect wildlife and habitat.
 
So Colorado has gone the opposite route on this where they are not charging the full amount unless you are drawn (I guess to avoid losing all of that money to the credit card companies), but they have instituted their own higher fees to line their pockets so it might look a bit better to the applicant where they are not putting up as much money to apply, but are getting hit with higher fees and a requirement to buy a license and the DOW is making way more money.

Not sure why Wyoming hasn't thought of this or maybe they are trying to keep things more fair or keep point creep from happening or helping out the odds for those who will front all of the money, even if on a credit card? The buying the license allows the states to get matching federal dollars for those license sales, something Wyoming has not done yet.

Either way, all of the states are gouging the hunters (mostly non-residents) and it will likely back fire at some point in time when everyone is fed up with the amount of money being spent on this tag game where those will less disposable income can't afford to play the game.
 
The only thing I was surprised about was that sheep and goat applications increased.

I would have thought, with all the whining I see about point creep and the new "math majors", that applications would have dropped.

But, then again, if you want to hunt moose, sheep, goat, bison...you really don't have much of a choice whether you have points or not.

The choices are to apply even with slim odds in the random, or try to save 10-15-20-30-50K to hunt one of those species by just buying a tag.

As far as the increase in doe/fawn, cow/calf, elk, deer and pronghorn...I think that's just a function of Wyoming being the best option for all of those and having the best quality/quantity ratio and tag availability.

Like always, good chit sells itself.
 
The Dept did discuss changing the payment to be for successful apps only and it was not approved. One reason was the huge increase in apps that would have taken place, as was the case in CO.
 
>
>I would have thought, with all
>the whining I see about
>point creep and the new
>"math majors", that applications would
>have dropped.
>

>
>
>Like always, good chit sells itself.
>
>
>



Big plus ONE!

I'm sure the vocal few do NOT represent the majority.

Wyoming is still the best game in town IMHO.

Zeke
#livelikezac
 
>The only thing I was surprised
>about was that sheep and
>goat applications increased.
>
>I would have thought, with all
>the whining I see about
>point creep and the new
>"math majors", that applications would
>have dropped.
>
>But, then again, if you want
>to hunt moose, sheep, goat,
>bison...you really don't have much
>of a choice whether you
>have points or not.
>
>The choices are to apply even
>with slim odds in the
>random, or try to save
>10-15-20-30-50K to hunt one of
>those species by just buying
>a tag.
>
>As far as the increase in
>doe/fawn, cow/calf, elk, deer and
>pronghorn...I think that's just a
>function of Wyoming being the
>best option for all of
>those and having the best
>quality/quantity ratio and tag availability.
>
>
>Like always, good chit sells itself.
>
>
>

I agree with you on the Moose, sheep, goat etc.

But I think the economy had a huge roll in applications being up across the west this past year.


"Go hunt for meat at Walmart."
 
I remember answering the surveys last year or the year before about credit card fees. I think I got a survey for every license I held that year, or every harvest survey or something. I think I got to answer the survey at least 3 times. I chose "pay the credit card fees", because the other choices were worse. I think the Colorado solution of letting everybody apply without paying will result in greatly reduced odds of drawing. It would be nice to have a debit card option that didn't have the fee.
 
It could improve the random draw odds this year. I always apply for a tag even though I know I have a snowball's chance of drawing rather than just buy a point.

This year I may just buy points. I feel like a chump spending 2.5 % when I know it's for nothing.

















Stay Thirsty My Friends
 
I agree with Ocho. I always apply for hard to draw hunts under 3% odds. Not this year. Special Elk tag requires an extra $30.
 
>Just another way to make more
>money!

Just another way for the WYGF to put another couple million on the ground for wildlife instead of a credit card companies pocket...
 
>>Just another way to make more
>>money!
>
>Just another way for the WYGF
>to put another couple million
>on the ground for wildlife
>instead of a credit card
>companies pocket...


Exactly BuzzH and it sure would be nice if people didn't type posts like that without knowing the facts!
 
Not exactly! The credit card companies still get their money in this scenario!!! This is just another fee that the consumer pays, basically a way to raise tags 2.5% without actually raising them.

I don't have a problem with the idea in general, but they should allow you to either send in a check or use a debit card to avoid those 2.5% fees or pay significantly reduced fees if using the debit function! Also, when they return the money to your credit card, is the WY G&F getting any credits from those fees? If the amount is different, maybe not. If they are, how much? Will the 2.5% survive an audit if there is a class action suit? I think Visa averages around 1.5% now, but I don't know a lot about it. I would like to see the books on how they came up with 2.5%.

You can't even even drop off cold hard cash to one of their offices to avoid paying the fee. It will add up to be a few hundred dollars if you are applying for moose and sheep and goat and elk and every thing else each year.

I would like to see WY get rid of the mandatory point fee for Sheep and Moose, this fee will keep younger kids and adults from applying for a random tag, seems disingenuous to me to require it to apply for a random tag.
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-28-19 AT 01:16PM (MST)[p]>Not exactly! The credit card
>companies still get their money
>in this scenario!!! This
>is just another fee that
>the consumer pays, basically a
>way to raise tags 2.5%
>without actually raising them.
>
>I don't have a problem with
>the idea in general, but
>they should allow you to
>either send in a check
>or use a debit card
>to avoid those 2.5% fees
>or pay significantly reduced fees
>if using the debit function!
>Also, when they return the
>money to your credit card,
>is the WY G&F getting
>any credits from those fees?
> If the amount is
>different, maybe not. If
>they are, how much?
>Will the 2.5% survive an
>audit if there is a
>class action suit? I think
>Visa averages around 1.5% now,
>but I don't know a
>lot about it. I
>would like to see the
>books on how they came
>up with 2.5%.
>
>You can't even even drop off
>cold hard cash to one
>of their offices to avoid
>paying the fee. It
>will add up to be
>a few hundred dollars if
>you are applying for moose
>and sheep and goat and
>elk and every thing else
>each year.
>
>I would like to see WY
>get rid of the mandatory
>point fee for Sheep and
>Moose, this fee will keep
>younger kids and adults from
>applying for a random tag,
>seems disingenuous to me to
>require it to apply for
>a random tag.

You really need to quit typing before you know what you're talking about. Would you rather that the G&F keep losing a couple million dollars a year that they were paying the CC company from part of the fees we were submitting? That's what was happening and why BuzzH made his post and I seconded his comment. It also doesn't raise any of the fees G&F charges or it would have to have gone through the Legislature for approval. Yes, it's money the consumer pays, but now the G&F doesn't lose money like they were in the millions by using this new method. This method is good because if they did like CO where you don't pay until you draw you would see applications sky rocket a lot more than the 20% BuzzH mentioned. Just look at the crazy increase CO has had in the short time they went that route! Wyoming is easily the best state for NRs for the bang you get with each dollar spent when you look at the quality and quantity an NR can hunt. I'm not even going to waste my time about the rest of your post regarding audits and a class action lawsuit because that's pure baloney. THE 2.5% CC fee is not out of line at all! Click the link below to get all the FACTS!

https://wgfd.wyo.gov/News/Game-and-Fish-credit-card-processing-fee-begins-fo
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-28-19 AT 04:19PM (MST)[p][font size="1" color="#

Wy pays on both sides of the transaction.

"I would like to see the books on how they came up with 2.5%."

Wyoming pays 2.3% on the sale and pays $0.10 on the refund. The fee is charged for all purchases dept wide when using a card, not just licenses.
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-28-19 AT 03:01PM (MST)[p]Nripepi,

Good luck with your class action lawsuit...its a willing seller and a willing buyer situation.

Its not like the fee is "sprung" on you, its right there when you hit the payment button when applying. I know, because I just paid for my nephews type 1 and type 6 NR fees with my debit card.

Also, you're not required to apply for tags in Wyoming, if you don't like the CC fees, take your applications elsewhere, lots of other states to apply in.

I have applied for tags in MT, ID, NM, AZ, NV, WY, CO, OR, AK, TX, UT, KY, etc. for a long time. Some, as in the case of NV and UT, I've paid many hundreds of dollars in non refundable application fees, cc fees, and hunting licenses fees and in some cases have never even sniffed a tag yet...20 years alone in Utah.

I'm not going to b itch about it because I willingly purchased and applied for those tags, in all those States, knowing:

1. I wasn't assured anything
2. I did it voluntarily
3. I wasn't required to apply
4. My money is going to protect and enhance wildlife in those states. Funny how much hunting means to people like you (supposedly), but then you cry the blues when you have to fund it.

Applying for a NR tag is a luxury and choice, not a right and certainly not required.
 
You are sure right on with that comment under #4 and last line in your post BuzzH! He, and all the others that keep complaining about rising hunting fees must not eat, drive a car, or do anything else that keeps going up every year due to inflation.
 
I wonder what else some NR will complain about next. Like stated by buzz. If you don't like it, I hear NM has some great draw odds and Utah gives plenty to the NR.
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-28-19 AT 09:12PM (MST)[p]Buzz and Topgun,

Take a chill pill guys, I respect both of you. I love to hunt in Wyoming and want to bring my boys to see your great state and enjoy the opportunity to hunt there...I just might have to get another job to be able to afford it!

I stated "I don't have a problem with the idea in general, but they should allow you to either send in a check or use a debit card to avoid those 2.5% fees". Do you not agree with that? Charge me $10 for processing my check if you need to in order to recover the cost, sounds fair to me. I would rather my hard earned money went to G&F instead of credit card companies.

If I apply myself and my three boys for all non-resident species in Wyoming then I have to pay $1,552 in these brand "new" fees that just started 1 month ago. Am I going to do that? Of course not, we will pick and choose.

Wyoming waited for 1 year to spring this "new" fee after significantly raising non-resident licenses and points fees last year. I understand they have to fund themselves and I understand inflation and supply and demand, but the time of this makes it a money grab, plain and simple. Why didn't they institute the "new" fee last year or the year before if they were losing so much money to the credit card companies? Why did they wait to this year, right after they raised tag and point fees? Because they didn't want to lose a bunch of non-resident hunters by hitting them twice in the same year. 99% of businesses, probably more than 99%, wrap the credit card fees in the price of their goods and services. Isn't that Wyoming had been doing for years and years and years? It didn't just magically change this year, credit card fees have actually gone down over that time period. That's why this was a money grab. At least give us a chance to give you cash if we want to and then hand it back to us.

While I am rambling, if I want to apply my three sons for random tags for moose and sheep, it will cost me $150 per species. Sure they will get their preference point for that, but why are they forcing me to take that point if I don't want to pay for it? Seems like another money grab to me, but that is debate for a different time.

I am sure the non-refundable hunting license will be coming next, do you think? $100 to apply for anything you want. I may pay it, I may not. I hope Wyoming gives me more than a few weeks to decide on that one.

I read the press release before and I don't think (I definitely do not know) that 2.5% is how much they are actually losing. I thought Visa and others have gone down to 1.5% charge and they give some of those fees back on a return. I could be wrong for sure, but I would like to see the math myself if I am being told: "The new 2.5% processing fee will offset the costs charged to Game and Fish for accepting credit cards. Game and Fish will not profit from this fee." If that fee is only 1.5% or perhaps less with some using debit cards, then they are taking 700K+ more from hunters, but not for the reason they state and it seems like a crazy lawyer who wants to fight the government could take that case based on the statement we will not profit from the fee. Sure they might not win and there is probably not a crazy lawyer who would want to try, but I bet if someone did try we would find out the true % that has been lost, maybe it is 2.5%!

I would say the fee was sprung on me, there was no warning. It is definitely changing my plans for the Fall where I am not applying for some hard to draw random tags. I will just keep that Benjamin in my pocket instead of trying for a 0.2% chance of drawing.

I would like it if they charged $20 for points for cow elk type 6 licenses and for doe/fawn antelope licenses while I am asking for things! It would be great to plan one of those hunts with my son.

See you all in Wyoming this Fall, god willing!
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-29-19 AT 00:20AM (MST)[p]A post above tells you exactly what the dept pays on a cc purchase and refund. Not sure why the text is green.
Those cc fees and how to deal with them were brought up in the July commission meeting. All their meeting stuff is online under the commission link on the home page.
 
>Buzz and Topgun,
>
>Take a chill pill guys, I
>respect both of you. I
>love to hunt in Wyoming
>and want to bring my
>boys to see your great
>state and enjoy the opportunity
>to hunt there...I just might
>have to get another job
>to be able to afford
>it!
>
>I stated "I don't have a
>problem with the idea in
>general, but they should allow
>you to either send in
>a check or use a
>debit card to avoid those
>2.5% fees". Do you
>not agree with that?
>Charge me $10 for processing
>my check if you need
>to in order to recover
>the cost, sounds fair to
>me. I would rather
>my hard earned money went
>to G&F instead of credit
>card companies.
>
>If I apply myself and my
>three boys for all non-resident
>species in Wyoming then I
>have to pay $1,552 in
>these brand "new" fees that
>just started 1 month ago.
> Am I going to
>do that? Of course
>not, we will pick and
>choose.
>
>Wyoming waited for 1 year to
>spring this "new" fee after
>significantly raising non-resident licenses and
>points fees last year.
>I understand they have to
>fund themselves and I understand
>inflation and supply and demand,
>but the time of this
>makes it a money grab,
>plain and simple. Why
>didn't they institute the "new"
>fee last year or the
>year before if they were
>losing so much money to
>the credit card companies?
>Why did they wait to
>this year, right after they
>raised tag and point fees?
> Because they didn't want
>to lose a bunch of
>non-resident hunters by hitting them
>twice in the same year.
> 99% of businesses, probably
>more than 99%, wrap the
>credit card fees in the
>price of their goods and
>services. Isn't that Wyoming
>had been doing for years
>and years and years?
>It didn't just magically change
>this year, credit card fees
>have actually gone down over
>that time period. That's
>why this was a money
>grab. At least give
>us a chance to give
>you cash if we want
>to and then hand it
>back to us.
>
>While I am rambling, if I
>want to apply my three
>sons for random tags for
>moose and sheep, it will
>cost me $150 per species.
> Sure they will get
>their preference point for that,
>but why are they forcing
>me to take that point
>if I don't want to
>pay for it? Seems
>like another money grab to
>me, but that is debate
>for a different time.
>
>I am sure the non-refundable hunting
>license will be coming next,
>do you think? $100
>to apply for anything you
>want. I may pay
>it, I may not.
>I hope Wyoming gives me
>more than a few weeks
>to decide on that one.
>
>
>I read the press release before
>and I don't think (I
>definitely do not know) that
>2.5% is how much they
>are actually losing. I
>thought Visa and others have
>gone down to 1.5% charge
>and they give some of
>those fees back on a
>return. I could be
>wrong for sure, but I
>would like to see the
>math myself if I am
>being told: "The new
>2.5% processing fee will offset
>the costs charged to Game
>and Fish for accepting credit
>cards. Game and Fish will
>not profit from this fee."
> If that fee is
>only 1.5% or perhaps less
>with some using debit cards,
>then they are taking 700K+
>more from hunters, but not
>for the reason they state
>and it seems like a
>crazy lawyer who wants to
>fight the government could take
>that case based on the
>statement we will not profit
>from the fee. Sure
>they might not win and
>there is probably not a
>crazy lawyer who would want
>to try, but I bet
>if someone did try we
>would find out the true
>% that has been lost,
>maybe it is 2.5%!
>
>I would say the fee was
>sprung on me, there was
>no warning. It is definitely
>changing my plans for the
>Fall where I am not
>applying for some hard to
>draw random tags. I will
>just keep that Benjamin in
>my pocket instead of trying
>for a 0.2% chance of
>drawing.
>
>I would like it if they
>charged $20 for points for
>cow elk type 6 licenses
>and for doe/fawn antelope licenses
>while I am asking for
>things! It would be
>great to plan one of
>those hunts with my son.
>
>
>See you all in Wyoming this
>Fall, god willing!


First off, I'm a NR that lives in MI, not WY! You have come up with so many things on that rant that are wrong regarding CCs that I will only comment on two of your other comments. That is that NR licenses were raised last year for the first time in ten years and that's why the increase was significant. Part of that increase was because when the Legislature did that they also took away ALL of the money from now on that F&G got from the General Fund, which meant they are still in the hole for a million bucks even after those fees were raised! Yes, a couple PP fees went up significantly, but a PP for antelope and deer only went up $1 and elk $2. As we have stated numerous times on fees, it is not a right for a NR to hunt, but rather a privilege. Wyoming is not unlike other states out west on most of their fees and without a doubt treats NRs better than any other for the number of tags we can draw a year and for the quality of game available!
 
Has anyone confirmed if a refund is issued due to not drawing a tag will any portion of the CC fee be refunded? I know many CC processing companies keep a few cents if a purchase is refunded.
 
EChecks are an easy way to pay. The cost is less than $2 per transaction. The refund would need to be by check- so WY could charge $5 to cover those costs. Or WY could refund by ECheck and that would cost less than $2.

WY could still offer payment by Credit Card and charge the 2.5%.
It really would not be that hard to set up those options on the payment page. It would benefit hunters and the State. Their payments page could even tell the purchaser if it is cheaper to use an eCheck or card.

I don't think anyone is saying WY shouldn't cover their costs. But there can be a discussion on how they could do it better for the State and the Applicants.

--
Is an eCheck the same as a check?
ECheck Definition. An electronic check -- eCheck -- is an electronic form of a paper check. Just like a paper check, an electronic check draws money directly from a checking account. ... Customers can record eChecks in checkbook registers in the same way that they record paper checks.
 
$32.68 or $47.08 for NR to apply for full price elk. That does sting an little, but I don't have any elk living in my back yard.

I'll be curious to see how that affects the number of applicants for all species. Most years I apply for the license hoping for that random tag as I build points. Will a lot of applicants just wait for the point purchase period?

At least we'll get to see the NR elk drawing odds in February.
 
>$32.68 or $47.08 for NR to
>apply for full price elk.
>That does sting an little,
>but I don't have any
>elk living in my back
>yard.
>
>I'll be curious to see how
>that affects the number of
>applicants for all species. Most
>years I apply for the
>license hoping for that random
>tag as I build points.
>Will a lot of applicants
>just wait for the point
>purchase period?
>
>At least we'll get to see
>the NR elk drawing odds
>in February.


I'm going to trust your math because I'm too lazy to double check. If a guy applies for one of the hardest to draw tags in the regular random draw some of the units are 1/400 or worse odds. It would be $32.68 plus fronting the tag fee. Or a guy can enter one of the commissioners tags raffles for $50 with 1/400 odds.

For $17.32 more it seems it's worth the reward to play the raffle game instead of the state game until you have the points for the tag you want. If you drew the commissioners tag you could hunt any unit. Since some units you have zero chance of ever drawing without max points the commissioners tag is even that much better.

If you apply a risk vs reward strategy to apps like you do to investments it kind of opens your eyes to the fact some of the raffles/super tags have a better return on investment.
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-29-19 AT 09:12AM (MST)[p]IMHO the CC fee won't slow down applications for elk, deer, and antelope, but may for the real high priced species with bad draw odds. Yes, it's too bad they don't allow other forms of payment, but I'm sure they looked at the cost savings to the Department by doing it just one way with a CC and that's what we'll have to live with.

DirtyTough---By making your post regarding raffle tags you probably just lowered your chance of drawing one when everyone reads it and says that sounds good and I think I'll try that instead of the draws! We really cut our own throats talking about what units to hunt when the points to draw then go up and your post could do the same thing regarding raffle tags.
 
>LAST EDITED ON Jan-29-19
>AT 09:12?AM (MST)
>
>IMHO the CC fee won't slow
>down applications for elk, deer,
>and antelope, but may for
>the real high priced species
>with bad draw odds.
>Yes, it's too bad they
>don't allow other forms of
>payment, but I'm sure they
>looked at the cost savings
>to the Department by doing
>it just one way with
>a CC and that's what
>we'll have to live with.
>
>
>DirtyTough---By making your post regarding raffle
>tags you probably just lowered
>your chance of drawing one
>when everyone reads it and
>says that sounds good and
>I think I'll try that
>instead of the draws!
>We really cut our own
>throats talking about what units
>to hunt when the points
>to draw then go up
>and your post could do
>the same thing regarding raffle
>tags.


TG I could give a ##### less if the odds do go down. I used to be super secretive about stuff like that and came to realize it's more headache then it's worth. At .25% I don't plan to draw anyway.

Plus you obviously don't know how most of those raffles work for commissioners tags. All of them I've looked at are capped. Which means my odds don't go down since there is a set number of tickets sold and no more. Thanks for the ?info? though.
 
A few things need to be cleared up. first off the state of WY has not been " losing " money on these transactions, they've been doing quite well off the NR. very very well in fact. just like all the price increases they've tossed our way this is just another way to make more money.

That's okay, just call it what it is and that's another price hike. if you don't like it you're free to walk away.


The other thing is nobody has the right to gripe because they were promised nothing. this is untrue. if you pay $100 for a sheep point it's safe to assume you're entering into transaction where the rules will remain somewhat predictable within the bounds of what the resource can supply. in other words a die off is obviously going to reduce the opportunity and therefore your chances for a tag. but you should be able to count on the system to remain basically the same and the goal post won't move based on local politics.

And no, I'm not saying this includes fees and I'm not singling out WY I'm talking in general and with all states.






Stay Thirsty My Friends
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-29-19 AT 11:20AM (MST)[p]Totally disagree...the States are absolutely not required to keep things the same.

Further, the States absolutely have the right, and authority to move the goal posts if they want to.

I do agree that it would be nice if they didn't, but you're seeming to imply that its somehow against the States authority to manage game as they see fit, for the RESIDENTS of the State.

Anyone that enters into a current State application system, is absolutely getting everything they were promised. Your $100-150 dollar sheep application is buying a point and a chance at a random sheep tag if you apply smartly. That's what was promised and that was what the GF delivered. There was no promise or even assumed promise that next year would stay the same.

To claim otherwise is just not dealing in reality. Show me, at time of application, where is says anything about keeping the system the same forever, or where a State is not within its authority to change as they see fit.

I'll save you the time, its not there. I can also save you the suspense, things always change over time. If you don't understand that going in, you're a na?ve fool.

Not one time, that I've ever applied for a tag in the 39 years I've been doing so, did I expect or even think drawing systems wouldn't change. In fact, its quite the opposite, I assumed they would. Montana big three applications, in my lifetime, has went from random, apply for all tags every year...to a bonus point system with a 7 year wait, to a squared bonus point system with 7 year wait.

I'm not going to throw a tantrum and b itch because its changed 3 times since I started applying there...the State and its Citizens can do whatever they want with their States wildlife resources. I knew it wouldn't stay the same...and I can almost assure you it will change again.

The problem is the entitled attitude that many have, and whenever there's one iota of money involved those expectations and entitled attitudes only get worse.

Quit applying if you don't like it.
 
I don't think it is an entitled attitude, this hole thread is about why can't you pay via check, e-check, debit card....so you don't have to pay the 2.5% "new" fee? Did they not discuss this option at the commissioner meetings? It can't be that difficult and it would likely keep more people applying, but all you and TopGun have been doing is bashing people and telling them they feel they are entitled. I think everyone here understand things change, but the first announcement I saw from the G&F was the end of December 2018! Why not figure out a way to keep the money out of the credit card companies pockets and in the hunters pockets...maybe they will spend some of those savings in Wyoming!
 
nripepi,

Why do you keep asking questions about what was discussed at the Comm meeting when you have been provided with where to hear it for yourself? you where the one that came on here and claimed that this was some sort of "money grab" plan by the Comms and G&F. That they intentionally waited one year so that the unknowing NR's wouldn't see the evil in their master plan to screw you over and take more of your hard earned money. Watch the damn Comm meeting and you will see for yourself how and when this came about. Then you claim that the G&F is lying about how much CC fees really are in another backhanded way to get more of your money.

Now you are trying to say that this whole thread is about paying with a check or echeck. BS! Buzz has this right, you are just bitc hing. He!! you haven't even taken the time to listen to the meeting where this was talked about. Instead of complaining on the internet why don't you take your ideas to the G&F. At the end of every Comm meeting they have a time where you can bring up your ideas. They will listen and possibly take your ideas under consideration. Or you could keep complaining and coming up with conspiracy theories on the internet. Either way.
 
I will try and find it and listen, Thanks! I am not in a position to spend $1,000s flying across the country for a meeting to discuss this, I will call and e-mail and give them my thoughts for sure. I have given the G&F multiple good ideas to make more money over the years, which is kind of ironic.

This all started and the reason I got whiney was from the following exchange from Buzz and Topgun pasted at the bottom (both good guys that provide a ton to this forum and what does Buzz does for wildlife in WY should be commended...the two haven't seen eye to eye on many things over the years, so good to see them come together as well).

I believe they were wrong when they said this was to put a couple of million in the WYGF's pockets for wildlife instead of the credit card companies pockets. I called them out on that as this doesn't keep any money from the credit card companies pockets, not one darn cent as they stated below! I obviously went off a bit too much and could be wrong about the G&F happening to bring this up one year after raising fees, it might just be a coincidence or based on some credit card law that was recently passed by the state that allows one to charge fees for credit card purchases? I apologize to all for those rants, I was just trying to get my point across. I will try and find the meeting info.


>>Just another way to make more
>>money!
>
>Just another way for the WYGF
>to put another couple million
>on the ground for wildlife
>instead of a credit card
>companies pocket...


Exactly BuzzH and it sure would be nice if people didn't type posts like that without knowing the facts!
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-29-19 AT 02:13PM (MST)[p]>I believe they were wrong when
>they said this was to
>put a couple of million
>in the WYGF's pockets for
>wildlife instead of the credit
>card companies pockets. I called
>them out on that as
>this doesn't keep any money
>from the credit card companies
>pockets, not one darn cent
>as they stated below!

Good God I hope you are not a math teacher. Yes, the CC company gets its money. That money is an expense paid by G&F. Prior to this change there was no revenue to the G&F to offset this expense. Now the G&F has a new revenue stream, the fee they charge you to use a CC. In this case the new revenue equals the expense. That means more money for the G&F to use on other things.
 
>>I believe they were wrong when
>>they said this was to
>>put a couple of million
>>in the WYGF's pockets for
>>wildlife instead of the credit
>>card companies pockets. I called
>>them out on that as
>>this doesn't keep any money
>>from the credit card companies
>>pockets, not one darn cent
>>as they stated below!
>
>Good God I hope you are
>not a math teacher.
>Yes, the CC company gets
>its money. That money
>is an expense paid by
>G&F. Prior to this
>change there was no revenue
>to the G&F to offset
>this expense. Now the
>G&F has a new revenue
>stream, the fee they charge
>you to use a CC.
> In this case the
>new revenue equals the expense.
> That means more money
>for the G&F to use
>on other things.

No chit man, as that paragraph of his shows how mixed up he is about this change where the people now pay it out of pocket to save the Department millions in lost revenue when they were paying it out of license fees! How many times does he or others have to be told the reason this was done, because apparently it's not sinking in!

Kudos to BuzzH for his flat out telling it like it is and that Ocho is full of baloney!
 
Sorry, I was taking things word for word as was stated:

>Just another way for the WYGF
>to put another couple million
>on the ground for wildlife
>instead of a credit card
>companies pocket...

"instead of a credit card companies pocket" I thought that meant that the money would not be going to a credit card company, but to the WY G&F instead based on my reading comprehension.

The same amount of money is going to a credit card company with or without this new fee, 2.3% because of a "current" contract the G&F or the state has in place with Visa/MC and Discover versus the standard 1.5% being paid nowadays. I admit I was wrong about the 2.5% or 2.3% vs. 1.5%, I didn't know the G&F or state had such a sweetheart deal with credit card companies.

Sorry, but the part of the statement that says "instead" is a false statement. Maybe that is not what was meant, sorry I jumped on you both if that was not what was meant. It is just how I read it and how most would read that sentence and I disagreed and was called a moron that can't do math.... I took instead to mean instead, sorry.

I read all of the memos and power point presentations on the scenarios presented at the Commission Meetings (still have to go through the 12 hours of audio) and only found one mention of the issue being discussed in Greg Phipps presentation at the July meeting on Slide 23 of his presentation where he lists 3 Risks to going to the 2.5% fee:

1. Lack of customer support of increased consumer cost
2. Potential customer demand for alternative payment and/or application means - demand could result in increased admin overhead
3. Would require a system change with WGFD to apply the percent fee

The 2nd risk is what many on this thread will be asking the G&F, an alternative to having to pay the fee. I did not see (I have to listen so it could be in the audio files) any discussion on alternatives like debit cards and e-checks....maybe the current contract charges 2.5% for debit card transactions as well, it just treats them as a credit card transaction? When does that contract end? If it they go to the market rate of 1.5%, will they reduce the fee?

I am pretty sure we all want the same thing here, a properly-funded G&F that can manage wildlife resources that will allow for future generations to enjoy that resource through hunting. I just hate giving my hard earned money away to a bank without any benefit!
 
nripepi---I have made more than one post agreeing that it would be nice if there was more than the one way to pay than with a CC. However, the more ways to pay the more overhead it takes and I imagine that was why just the CC option is available. You and all the rest of us are benefiting because the G&F will have more than 2 million dollars in their budget with us now paying that fee upfront out of our pocket instead of them.
 
Wow, still going...As some have said, this won't change the the numbers of applicants in the game...If anything was going to do that, it would have been the price increase last year...

That said, I do believe a lot more people want to get out of some of the ?point? games...I know I do, as I've found out I really didn't need all those points to have some good hunts...Other than maybe Elk and I'm starting to wonder about that one too...Lol


'Ike'

Bowhunter...
 
The game just gets more expensive. I have 16 Shiras Moose preference points and along with the cost of a point now and the processing fee, it will force me at some point to settle on a hunt in an area sooner then later.

This is how the game will be played unfortunately in the future.
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-29-19 AT 07:59PM (MST)[p]>The game just gets more expensive.
>I have 16 Shiras Moose
>preference points and along with
>the cost of a point
>now and the processing fee,
>it will force me at
>some point to settle on
>a hunt in an area
>sooner then later.
>
>This is how the game will
>be played unfortunately in the
>future.


Unfortunately it's been that way for quite a while. You could try to draw a cow tag with your present total in a couple of the units, but I imagine you hope to kill a good bull with as much money as you already have tied up in points alone. It looks like you're only 1 PP behind for a bull in several unit too if creep doesn't mess you up too bad. Good luck on whatever you decide!
 
Contract law states that a contract must be mutually beneficial to be valid. I'm not a lawyer but I'd say years of preference point fees accepted do put a legal obligation on recipient to provide a service similar to what the fees were paid for. we're not in any sort of situation like this anywhere I'm aware of and I hope we never are.


when you take money for something you commit to delivering something in return. in this case it's not a tag but an increased opportunity at a rag. I'll stick to that until I'm proven wrong.













Stay Thirsty My Friends
 
I just read this thread, and I would say the mighty Buzz needs to stick with what he knows because he is clearly ignorant when it comes to contract law and legal concepts.

His final conclusion may or may not be correct, but the basis for his assertions are largely flawed and no where near absolute. No I am not a lawyer, but I have worked hand in hand with more than one on quite a few claims against government agencies at all levels including state and federal.

A transaction that includes a "willing buyer and a willing seller" most definitely does not preclude either party from recovering damages. I have worked on more than one contract where some of the contract terms or provisions as executed between the parties were deemed illegal or unenforceable. A "willing buyer and a willing seller" really only means that a contract was formed. It certainly does not mean that one party can't have a claim against the other even if the original contract terms remain unchanged.

In regards to Buzz's comments about Wyoming making changes to their draw system; He seems to be saying that outside of something that was explicitly guaranteed or promised, the WYGF can basically change whatever they want. I would agree that they can largely do whatever they want, but that absolutely does not mean that they can't be held liable for those changes if they damage the other party. Just because something is not specifically mentioned in an agreement does not mean that either party can thus do anything that is not mentioned without a possible claim by the other party to recover their damages. Honestly, this is really an elementary concept that I think most people understand. However, Buzz does not seem to grasp it.

The odds of a legal challenge to any current or future changes that damage non-residents (made by the WYGF) are probably low only because it would be a large undertaking in terms of resources, time, and money. The odds are certainly not low because of the concepts that Buzz proclaims.

I just hope most people that read this thread are able to realize that Buzz is largely full of chit. There is indeed some legal merit in what 440 and Nrepipi are saying.

Excavator
 
I would be very surprised at any legal challenge even with merit.

Obviously, guys with a few points are going to pay, not to risk losing any.

I bet some will pay without realizing the fee. Once its paid the merit may be out the window?

Might see a few bale the next few years, but who knows.
 
"I am not a lawyer, but worked hand and hand with one". Did you sleep in a Holiday Inn Express too? I guess I didnt realize if you worked hand in hand with a lawyer his/her knowledge would rub off on you. Interesting...
 
Grosventre,

If it will rub off on you or not probably depends on who you are. For you, possibly not?

For me, being the majority owner of the company fighting the claims, it certainly did.
 
>I just hope most people that
>read this thread are able
>to realize that Buzz is
>largely full of chit.
>There is indeed some legal
>merit in what 440 and
>Nrepipi are saying.
>
>Excavator

Yes sir, that comment right there is straight out of the Bizarro World, totally a$$ backwards!
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-01-19 AT 07:24AM (MST)[p]Did I strike a nerve? I would say keep your wife at home and I won't be the rubor, or need one.
 
jm77 stated:

Yes sir, that comment right there is straight out of the Bizarro World, totally a$$ backwards:

BuzzH stated:

"Excavator....have your lawyer buddy look up S. 339 sec 2 (a)....
Get back to me... "




The above responses are about what I expected. You did not counter my position whatsoever (feel free to post up whatever statute or other you are referring to).

When, and if, you do choose to provide a legitimate response, please make sure you counter what I have actually asserted. Don't resort to a straw man argument in an attempt to save face.

Excavator
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-01-19 AT 10:56AM (MST)[p]Rub-or as in the lawyer with the smarts to know the law, not the rub-ee as in the guy hoping the info will rub off onto.
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-01-19 AT 06:21PM (MST)[p]>jm77 stated:
>
>Yes sir, that comment right there
>is straight out of the
>Bizarro World, totally a$$ backwards:
>
>
>BuzzH stated:
>
>"Excavator....have your lawyer buddy look up
>S. 339 sec 2 (a)....
>
>Get back to me... "
>
>
>
>
>The above responses are about what
>I expected. You did
>not counter my position whatsoever
>(feel free to post up
>whatever statute or other you
>are referring to).
>
>When, and if, you do choose
>to provide a legitimate response,
>please make sure you counter
>what I have actually asserted.
>Don't resort to a straw
>man argument in an attempt
>to save face.
>
>Excavator

So let me get this straight, you have an opinion about something, and it is only an opinion, and you provided nothing at all to back up your claims or prove a thing about your opinion, but you expect others to refute your opinion to your expectations.

Oh I forgot, you hung out with a lawyer...
 
jm 77,

That's it? That's all you can come up with?

I have undoubtedly provided a basis for my position. For example, I told you of my direct experiences with "willing buyer and willing seller situations" (also known as a contract) where some of the contract terms had been deemed illegal and unenforceable. This directly refutes the primary basis for Buzz's position in post #25. If you can't see that, well then I don't think I can help you.

The only thing you are doing is demonstrating that you don't have the capacity to have a real debate.

As previously stated, I am not a lawyer. However, compared to you, I might as well be.
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-02-19 AT 09:16AM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Feb-02-19 AT 09:10?AM (MST)

OK excavator, time for a proper paddling since you cant do your own research.

For starters, what gives the States the right to manage game as they see fit, including discriminating against non-resident hunters has been upheld many times in court. Baldwin v. Montana Game and fish Commission, Shutz v. Wyoming, and a host of other such lawsuits. In many of those cases, the courts ruled that hunting as a NR was not a right. However, many of the cases also held that a States Residents do have the Right to hunt and fish under State constitutions, but doesn't apply to NR hunters.

The various lawusits were argued on all sorts of things from NR's being discriminated against, from the constitutionality, dormant commerce clause, Privileges and immunities clause, etc. etc.

The last significant lawsuit that was filed, was in 2002, by USO/Conservation force v. Manning. If you recall, in that case, the 9th circuit found in favor of USO under the dormant commerce clause. That year the AZGF had to draw some additional NR licenses and change its regulations to reflect the court decision.

However, in 2005 Harry Reid and 14 other Senators mostly from the West reacted to the Conservation Force lawsuit. They passed an act, that you failed to research, to "Reaffirmation of state regulation of Resident and Non Resident Hunting and Fishing Act of 2005". That Act, reaffirms the States Right to discriminate against non-residents any way they see fit. Sec b (1)It is the policy of Congress that it is in the public interest for each State to continue to regulate the taking for
any purpose of fish and wildlife within its boundaries, including by means of laws or regulations that differentiate between residents and nonresidents of such State with respect to the availability of
licenses or permits for taking of particular species of fish or wildlife, the kind and numbers of fish and wildlife that may be taken, or the fees charged in connection with issuance of licenses or permits for
hunting or fishing.

The bill passed (sec. 6036) and squashed 2 other active cases at the time, suing for the same reasons (dormant commerce clause), in Illinois and Nevada.

In other words, good luck with your lawsuits that the States have some "contractual" obligation to not change fees, tag quotas, etc. etc. that discriminate against NR hunters.

Since its already established law under 6036, and been upheld in the 8th, 9th, and 10th circuit courts...I wish you luck in your lawsuit claiming that WY or any other State doesn't have a right to "move the goalposts"...because they absolutely do.

Of course, you can file a lawsuit over anything. Feel free to gather up ochokid and nrepipi and hire your lawyer buddy...hope he's argued some cases at the circuit court level, and his legal fees are cheap.
 
Buzz,

Before we get started, I think it is important to remind people what you originally asserted and what I originally responded to because you are now trying to modify or flat out change the basis of your original position. Specifically, in post #25, Buzz?s statement to Nripepi was ?Good luck with your class action lawsuit...its a willing seller and a willing buyer situation.? This was in your response to Nripepi?s statements in post #22 where he complained about the credit card fees.
I responded to Buzz?s post #25 in my post #52 by stating the following:

?A transaction that includes a "willing buyer and a willing seller" most definitely does not preclude either party from recovering damages. I have worked on more than one contract where some of the contract terms or provisions as executed between the parties were deemed illegal or unenforceable. A "willing buyer and a willing seller" really only means that a contract was formed. It certainly does not mean that one party can't have a claim against the other even if the original contract terms remain unchanged.?

Notably, Buzz has chosen not to respond to my position regarding his statements in post #25. That's because Buzz?s position, as stated, is nonsense.


Before we move on to your (Buzz?s) post #64 regarding case precedence, let's see if you are actually countering what I have asserted. In my post #52, my two introductory sentences state the following:


?I just read this thread, and I would say the mighty Buzz needs to stick with what he knows because he is clearly ignorant when it comes to contract law and legal concepts.?

?His final conclusion may or may not be correct, but the basis for his assertions are largely flawed and nowhere near absolute.?


Your response in post #64 is written as if I said that the WYGF would lose in a court case, but I have not asserted that whatsoever. To illustrate, Buzz states the following in post #64:


?In other words, good luck with your lawsuits that the States have some "contractual" obligation to not change fees, tag quotas, etc. etc. that discriminate against NR hunters.?


Again, Buzz?s response is written as if I said that the WYGF would lose in a lawsuit. As is shown above and in my post #52, I have alleged nothing of the sort and clearly state I don't know who would win in a lawsuit (In fact, who would win or lose in a lawsuit is actually secondary to my primary point that Buzz is ignorant as demonstrated by the basis of his positions). This is an example of how Buzz attempts to create a straw man argument to save face and layout out a counter argument that at first glance seems convincing and reasonably well conveyed. However, it is not countering my original premise in the least. Unfortunately, his fan boys on this site are either unwilling or unable to see through that.

Finally, let's move on to Buzz?s newly established primary premise in post #64. Basically, he is saying that legal precedence will trump everything, and specifically that the ?Reaffirmation ???..Act of 2005? reaffirms the ?States Right to discriminate against non-residents any way they see fit.?

Obviously Wyoming?s state legal counsel will review the established legal precedent before making changes. Doesn?t that go without saying?

Actually, the tone of your post confuses me somewhat because you act like you think you did something special simply by copying and pasting some easily obtainable case precedence research that is likely only a couple clicks away. If your career in Wyoming does not take you where you want, maybe you have a chance as a paralegal?

Of course precedence is a huge factor, but if that's all that mattered, then there would probably only be about a tenth of the court cases there actually are. You need to focus on that last sentence, because unless you again modify your position to save face, that's all you are hanging your hat on.

As you stated in your most recent post #64, it is your belief that the ?Reaffirmation ???..Act of 2005? reaffirms the ?States Right to discriminate against non-residents any way they see fit.? By stating ?anyway they see fit,? you are saying that act supersedes all other existing laws and that the specific facts, circumstances, and implementation of any particular changes are irrelevant. That's an incoherent thought process.

If you were to say something like ?WYGF is in a strong position concerning changes to non-resident license and permit changes because of past case precedence,? I would absolutely agree. However, that is unquestionably not what you are saying. You present everything as if it is absolute, but it's not. For example, if WGFD were to abolish the preference point system in a year?s time period, WGFD would be taken to court and they would probably lose. That's an extreme example, but it is meant to illustrate that things are not as absolute as you seem to think they are. Ochoco Kid (440) touched on this concept in his post #50.

I have read what you have to say, and I stand by my original position largely unchanged. My position was and is as follows:

?I just read this thread, and I would say the mighty Buzz needs to stick with what he knows because he is clearly ignorant when it comes to contract law and legal concepts.?

?His final conclusion may or may not be correct, but the basis for his assertions are largely flawed and nowhere near absolute.?

**the only thing I would modify slightly, because you have now presented some new and different information, is that you are not quite as ignorant as I thought about legal concepts. You do at least grasp the significance of case precedence although it is not as significant as you seem to think it is**

Unlike you, I don't need to create straw man arguments and continually modify my position. That's mostly because I don't talk out my arse by making bold absolute statements that I can't back up. Remember, you still have not attempted to defend your position from post #25. That's because you can't. Further, your contention that case precedence and the ?Reaffirmation ???..Act of 2005? reaffirms the ?States Right to discriminate against non-residents any way they see fit? is absurd.

P.S. - Please quit changing the basis of your positions. It's hard to hit a moving target. It's probably much easier for you to just say...Sorry guys...I am a well intentioned but passionate guy that really cares about wildlife, and because of that, I sometimes get ahead of my skis and let my ego and emotions get in front of my brain. We are all guilty of that from time to time, but if your looking to garner support for your positions, you are not helping yourself by making off the cuff statements that you can't adequately defend.
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-02-19 AT 07:58PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Feb-02-19 AT 07:54?PM (MST)

Excavator,

You can choose to argue all you want, but laws/statute/acts matter.

The facts are that countless lawsuits regarding NR discrimination have been tried over and over again. The States have successfully defended their position, over and over and over again.

The 6036 reaffirmation act pretty well sewed it up...sure, any law can be repealed or challenged. But the law cant be ignored, in particular in litigation. Neither can case precedent at the circuit court level.

Finally, in reference to the "contract" language you seem hung up on. What legal argument do you have, if Wyoming chooses to not issue a single sheep, moose, deer, or elk tag to NR's? Make sure to consider that 6036 act and what State rights that law reaffirms.

When you apply for a species, you aren't applying for multiple years. The "contract" is a one time shot at a tag, not 2 years, not 5 years, not 10 years. When you apply the next year, its a new "contract". All you're getting when purchasing a preference point, is improved odds IF, yes IF, the State continues to allow NR's to even hunt the species you purchased points for. States move the goal posts, all the time. New Mexico, Montana, Arizona, Maine, etc. etc. have all made changes that discriminate against NR hunters. Some states don't even allow NR's to hunt certain species. In fact, I have points that I cant use for Rocky Mountain Bighorn in Nevada, because they don't issue a single RMB license to NR's. But, I don't have a legal leg to stand on, even if I felt like filing suit against NV. How was I ever wronged? I applied when a tag was available, I got my bonus point that I purchased. They delivered exactly what they promised and I willingly applied/paid. There was never a guarantee of a tag, or even that I would ever be allowed to apply again.

Like I say, if you want to challenge the law based on The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, contract language, Privileges and Immunities clause, Equal Protection Clause, Dormant Commerce Clause, or the fact you just don't think its fair, etc. etc., go for it.

Knock yourself out...its all been tried before, unsuccessfully, and States continue to discriminate against NR hunters.

Really, that's all that matters.

If anyone is over their skis, its you and the guys thinking you have a case to make when you're discriminated against.

Let me know when the trial starts, I want to be there when its over to say, "I told you so", again.
 
Buzz definitely makes a bunch of good points here and it would be obviously very difficult to sue the state and win based on changing the system, especially since there haven't been major changes....but back to these darn fees! I chose not to apply for non-resident elk this year because of my 0.25% chance and having to pay the fee when I feel like I should have been given an option of debit, e-check, cash, gold....whatever.

What happens when you pay by debit card for your license now? Buzz stated he applied by debit card for a non-resident relative...did the G&F pay visa 2.3% of that debit card purchase or did they only pay a normal debit card transaction cost (0.05%)?

That is my main issue with the new fee. Unless the contract with Visa, MC and Discover includes the same fee on debit card purchases, I think there is a case to be made by those using debit cards for their purchase as Game and Fish "will not profit from this fee" and the "new processing fee will offset the costs"...I am sure the G&F could come up with a good defense and why they need to put all buyers in the same bracket, but if someone shows them they could add "pay with debit card to avoid the 2.5% fee" button for $3,000, wouldn't the "class" have a case when they may have lost $100,000s+?

Hopefully the magic debit button is available next year! Charge me $5 to click it!
 
If there is a visa logo on the debit card it goes thru visa. The fee, I have no idea but I'm sure you couod get an answer in a few minutes from the dept.
 

Similar threads

BrianID
Thoughts on new Special license fees
2
Replies
107
Views
4k
BuzzH
BuzzH
Founder
Trophy Whitetail Hunts in Kansas and Indiana
Replies
0
Views
556
Founder
Founder

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

2020 SJ Buck 1.jpg
D22CB9CD-1F4E-447E-AA67-DF644DB6C3A1.jpeg
D66FE92E-DC89-4C25-94D2-3DCD5FEF99A8.jpeg
4AE90BD8-4EE2-4B82-9E9D-FF3BFF327C46.jpeg
Dads deer 3.jpg
BB1A5554-B71A-48AF-9627-03E934DE1807.jpeg
IMG_5740.jpg
IMG_0862.jpeg
IMG_4436.JPG
IMG_1532.jpg
Attachment (1).jpg
Jimmy Herrero (L) and Joe Herrero 2022 in 13A.jpg

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