SF0088 & WY PP Ponzi scheme fails for M/S ($3.6M NR dollars annually)

C

Crampy

Active Member
Messages
302
The WY GFD NR Preference Point Ponzi scheme for Moose/Sheep grossed $3.6M in 2022 alone. (12K NR applicants for each of moose/sheep @ $150/PP each).

And WY GFD will sell an NR $150 moose/sheep "Preference Points" on their website even today. Even though they know that they (WGF) and the Task Force fully supported SF0088 that passed out of committee unanimously on 1/17/23. Now, the 2027 transition to BP-squared is only a WY legislature floor vote away from completing the bait and switch.

A $50 million dollar Ponzi scheme just collapsed. Congratulations to WY Residents on getting the 90/10 on Big-5 (well deserved). But this necessitated the dismantling of the Ponzi on the NR side. And now, WY residents aren't happy that residents also are converting to BP-squared effective 2027.

I'm assuming that WGF will be offering refunds when they announce the full package of changes related to the bait & switch? WY won't really try to pull off the bait & switch without a refund offer, will they? And a reimbursement of the alleged 2.5% CC fees would also be in order.

 
If this passes, It's purely BS for those who have bought PP's in good faith, and stood in line for their turn, but I'll wager copious amounts of money that no one will sue and if they do, nothing will be paid out, period!

BP's are better for some, at this point, and the G$F/Wyo task force might keep a few suckers on the hook with this change so let the frivolity begin.

Thankfully, I'm about out of the Wyo game.

Zeke
 
WapitiBob said:
I always chuckle just a little when I see the refunds, somebody (never the op) is gonna sue, etc, etc comments.

Refund of the cc fee... that's a good one.
Click to expand...
+1
I’m always curious why people think a refund “should” be issued.
Nobody was ever forced to buy a point or ever offered a guarantee that those points would 100% get them a tag.
I purchase points in multiple states a year. Some points im not even sure when/if I’ll use them but that’s my personal choice. If the state decides to change their rules it’s also my choice to use my points then or continue to purchase them or abandon them.
 
I’m not in the sheep/moose game but would suggest the AZ/UT bonus point process works fairly well. Max point guys know when they’ll draw, and they will draw if they live long enough, and everybody else has weighted preference, based on their points, in the random side.
 
Buzz was the first from whom I read about a 50/50 possible preference/random option and it makes way more sense to me than just a full bonus conversion!
It still would push the top tier guys out about double the years but if they're younger (half my age) they can almost plan on a tag....unless the splits or draw/points process is changed yet again.

Zeke
 
Zeke said:
Buzz was the first from whom I read about a 50/50 possible preference/random option and it makes way more sense to me than just a full bonus conversion!
It still would push the top tier guys out about double the years but if they're younger (half my age) they can almost plan on a tag....unless the splits or draw/points process is changed yet again.

Zeke
Click to expand...
I’m not sure how old you are, but ANY type of true preference for Moose and Sheep in WY is never going to guarantee someone a tag. I suppose if you can guarantee they’ll live to be 90 while their peers will die at 80 then I guess you could. The only thing that will level off point creep is people dying. Expect most hard to draw things to see 55-70 points as the people who started in their teens either die without a tag or get lucky and outlive everyone else.
 
Zeke said:
Buzz was the first from whom I read about a 50/50 possible preference/random option and it makes way more sense to me than just a full bonus conversion!
It still would push the top tier guys out about double the years but if they're younger (half my age) they can almost plan on a tag....unless the splits or draw/points process is changed yet again.

Zeke
Click to expand...
Probably won't happen as most sportsmen would rather whine on the net than take action.

I've made some contacts at the legislature but honesty I'm not falling on a sword over it one way or the other.

I've drawn 2 moose and a sheep and I really feel it's somebody else's fight.

I simply made a recommendation that would be more fair to all...all the effort I'm willing to spend on it.
 
yotebuster17 said:
I’m not sure how old you are, but ANY type of true preference for Moose and Sheep in WY is never going to guarantee someone a tag. I suppose if you can guarantee they’ll live to be 90 while their peers will die at 80 then I guess you could. The only thing that will level off point creep is people dying. Expect most hard to draw things to see 55-70 points as the people who started in their teens either die without a tag or get lucky and outlive everyone else.
Click to expand...
The resource is outstripped by demand. There are simply tags that you'll NEVER have.
I agree, not everyone will come out a winner. I was more talking about the guys who are currently close on points. Everyone else would have to rely on random and Lord know there are way more applicants than tags.
 
BuzzH said:
Probably won't happen as most sportsmen would rather whine on the net than take action.

I've made some contacts at the legislature but honesty I'm not falling on a sword over it one way or the other.

I've drawn 2 moose and a sheep and I really feel it's somebody else's fight.

I simply made a recommendation that would be more fair to all...all the effort I'm willing to spend on it.
Click to expand...
I too have draw 2 moose tags and a sheep tags in Wyoming (thank you Wyo) but my interest is still in it for those around me who would love to have one of those.

I don't blame you for not wanting to fall on a sword over this since everyone must pick and choose their battles.

Yes, most of us are really good at ONLY whining on the WWW.

Zeke
 
Zeke said:
I too have draw 2 moose tags and a sheep tags in Wyoming (thank you Wyo) but my interest is still in it for those around me who would love to have one of those.

I don't blame you for not wanting to fall on a sword over this since everyone must pick and choose their battles.

Yes, most of us are really good at ONLY whining on the WWW.

Zeke
Click to expand...
Yep...for those with strong feelings one way or the other contact the house side TRW committee on the Wyoming legislative website.

I agree though Zeke I was trying to offer a solution that just sucked less for everyone. I realize there is no perfect way to distribute a scarce opportunity.

It's why I typically burn points ASAP before systems change and always apply over just buying points.
 
I like Buzz‘s 50/50 solution to the situation. Sort of meets both groups of applicants in the middle and would take out the potential liability WYG&F may face from a potential class action lawsuit.

It would seem to be an easy non-speculative damage calculation for any attorney to make and an easy case to bring. IMO the department would be remiss if they didn’t consider the potential for litigation, legal defense costs, and damages if they were sued and lost before proceeding with this change.

I remember reading some of the commentary recently that when CO had the focus group(s) for changes to their big game drawings that the department was concerned about potential litigation for wholesale changes made to their draw system.

Full disclosure: I don’t have any moose or sheep points having already drawn so going to a 100% weighted bonus point random draw system would be of benefit to me if I wanted to apply for a random tag in 2027. My son has 18 or so of each so this change would also slightly benefit him.

I personally won’t purchase any bonus points if I applied though at $150 as the minimal increase in odds does not justify the costs. Even at 20 plus points I think the odds of drawing are going to be probably under 1/2% or so. I would also advise my son to forego the $150 point cost and just apply for a random at least every two years so he doesn‘t lose his accumulated points.

Just one old hunter’s perspective having participated in the various western states draw systems and watching the changes the various game departments have made over time for the past 25 years or so…

Horniac
 
Horniac said:
...
It would seem to be an easy non-speculative damage calculation for any attorney to make and an easy case to bring. IMO the department would be remiss if they didn’t consider the potential for litigation, legal defense costs, and damages if they were sued and lost before proceeding with this change...

Horniac
Click to expand...

Very astute. Easy damage calculation and non-speculative damages are nice.

I remember in first year contracts spending about a week on the “Implied Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing” (GFFD). The idea is that neither party will do things that cause the other party to be unable to get their benefit of the deal.

I think any possible plaintiffs will do much better here if SF0088 passes so that the damage calculation is easier and the GFFD argument is stronger.

Both parties knew that animal populations would vary. But did both parties understand that one party would unilaterally and drastically change the NR allocation from 75/25 to 90/10 and from PP to BP-squared?

Not everyone will accept the refund – so it won’t be $50 million in reimbursements. But it will likely be a very big number. Big enought that the 30-40% taken by the law firm could be worth their time/risk.

Disclosure: I am 45yo and have 15PPs for both M&S and I would take the refunds if offered.
 
Crampy said:
Very astute. Easy damage calculation and non-speculative damages are nice.

I remember in first year contracts spending about a week on the “Implied Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing” (GFFD). The idea is that neither party will do things that cause the other party to be unable to get their benefit of the deal.

I think any possible plaintiffs will do much better here if SF0088 passes so that the damage calculation is easier and the GFFD argument is stronger.

Both parties knew that animal populations would vary. But did both parties understand that one party would unilaterally and drastically change the NR allocation from 75/25 to 90/10 and from PP to BP-squared?

Not everyone will accept the refund – so it won’t be $50 million in reimbursements. But it will likely be a very big number. Big enought that the 30-40% taken by the law firm could be worth their time/risk.

Disclosure: I am 45yo and have 15PPs for both M&S and I would take the refunds if offered.
Click to expand...
Never happen.
 
Sitting on 23 sheep points as a NR. This just blows my plan to retire and move to Wyoming in a few years. Figure I could live there 4 to 5 years and use up my points and then move to another state. Guess I will just stay in sunny Northern California. ??? Besides, not sure the wife is to keen on moving every 3 to 5 years. ??
 
So glad I bailed on sheep and burned my moose points when they jacked the PP’s to $100+. The numbers just didn’t add up way back then. And they sure as hell weren’t going to improve with time. Exited Oregon & Montana Ponzi schemes as well. Got it narrowed down to just AZ, UT, NV, CO, ME, & WY (elk/deer/lope). Will exit these too as I gradually burn points. The WY sheep/moose fiasco is turning out more just throwing away money than it was merely a poor investment. Sorry for the guys that will get screwed, but glad WY didn’t pocket my money fer nuthin.
 
Last edited:
WapitiBob said:
These things have a life span; take 90/10 for the big 5.

Forums get lit up
Dept is gonna get sued
Dept will have to refund money
Bill passes
Not another word
No lawsuit, not even an attempted injunction
Click to expand...
There's a part of me that would like to see it attempted. Won't happen but would provide some entertainment.
 
WapitiBob said:
These things have a life span; take 90/10 for the big 5.

Forums get lit up
Dept is gonna get sued
Dept will have to refund money
Bill passes
Not another word
No lawsuit, not even an attempted injunction
Click to expand...
You guys are insane if you don't think people will sue. Non-residents are a drop in the bucket as only those with 22+ on the sheep and 18+ on moose have a leg to stand on as those with less are in better shape with bonus squared. Residents on the other hand that were close to drawing a sheep tag are 10x as many people (90/10) :).

The street value of their Bighorn tag is the same as a non-resident, greater than 30K in value.

I can guarantee that I will either start the class action or join one if this passes and no refunds are offered. You cannot sell someone a preference point for 2 to 3 decades and then change it to a bonus point. I can't believe lawyers are not telling legislators there is a legal risk.
 
nripepi said:
You guys are insane if you don't think people will sue. Non-residents are a drop in the bucket as only those with 22+ on the sheep and 18+ on moose have a leg to stand on as those with less are in better shape with bonus squared. Residents on the other hand that were close to drawing a sheep tag are 10x as many people (90/10) :).

The street value of their Bighorn tag is the same as a non-resident, greater than 30K in value.

I can guarantee that I will either start the class action or join one if this passes and no refunds are offered. You cannot sell someone a preference point for 2 to 3 decades and then change it to a bonus point. I can't believe lawyers are not telling legislators there is a legal risk.
Click to expand...
Good luck.
 
nripepi said:
I can guarantee that I will either start the class action or join one if this passes and no refunds are offered.
Click to expand...
EB09DCBC-A413-4F50-A942-50B5277FFB12.jpeg
 
BuzzH said:
Good luck.
Click to expand...
Thanks! Will need all the help we can get, that's for sure. I surely don't want to, but it is just principle to me. I was taught to always hold up your end of the bargain. That would be my first ask, just change it back.

I am curious why more residents are not outspoken on the issue? They should end up 90% of the class affected by the change.
 
nripepi said:
You guys are insane if you don't think people will sue. Non-residents are a drop in the bucket as only those with 22+ on the sheep and 18+ on moose have a leg to stand on as those with less are in better shape with bonus squared. Residents on the other hand that were close to drawing a sheep tag are 10x as many people (90/10) :).

The street value of their Bighorn tag is the same as a non-resident, greater than 30K in value.

I can guarantee that I will either start the class action or join one if this passes and no refunds are offered. You cannot sell someone a preference point for 2 to 3 decades and then change it to a bonus point. I can't believe lawyers are not telling legislators there is a legal risk.
Click to expand...
1: I guess I’m insane

2: gonna have a hard time proving to a judge or anyone that’s had 3rd grade math or higher that “those with less points are in better shape with bonus squared”

3: you obviously didn’t follow the FNAWS auctions if you think a bighorn is only worth $30k. Multiply that by atleast 4

4: they actually can sell you a pref point for as long as they want and change it to whatever the hell else they want

5: unless you’ve got 24 or more sheep points you weren’t gonna live long enough get a tag anyway so this is a blessing (the number of guys with that or higher aren’t enough to fund or win a lawsuit anyhow).
 
Last edited:
I wonder what would happen if they said you can keep your PPs but we're going to bonus points. You have the chance to keep your PP you paid for or convert them to bonus points.
No where does it says your PP get you a guarantee of a license so keep them and those that want a chance at a license convert their PPs to bonus points?
 
nripepi said:
I am curious why more residents are not outspoken on the issue? They should end up 90% of the class affected by the change.
Click to expand...
Because the math says 95% of NRs will actually benefit from the change, even if they don't like or know it. Not trying to be flippant- but any probability analysis shows that.

For those with 22, 23, maybe 24 PPs in sheep, they have reason to be pissed. 4 years of delayed implementation will almost certainly clear out 25 and up.
 
It
HikeHunt61 said:
Because the math says 95% of NRs will actually benefit from the change, even if they don't like or know it. Not trying to be flippant- but any probability analysis shows that.

For those with 22, 23, maybe 24 PPs in sheep, they have reason to be pissed. 4 years of delayed implementation will almost certainly clear out 25 and up.
Click to expand...
ltll take 6 years at current rates to clear out 24-28. So when the 23 point crew hits eligibility in 6 years (they’ll have 29 and there’s over 250 of them) they’ll hold things up for another 15- 20 years or so. So they guys with 22 and lower are out no matter what happens.
 
HikeHunt61 said:
Because the math says 95% of NRs will actually benefit from the change, even if they don't like or know it. Not trying to be flippant- but any probability analysis shows that.

For those with 22, 23, maybe 24 PPs in sheep, they have reason to be pissed. 4 years of delayed implementation will almost certainly clear out 25 and up.
Click to expand...
What I meant was of those affected by the change, 90% of them should be residents and 10% non-res based on the tag splits on who would have received a tag under the current preference point system and could make up a class in a suit. The number of people affected is quite large and depending on the value of the tags, a pretty significant number.
 
yotebuster17 said:
It

ltll take 6 years at current rates to clear out 24-28. So when the 23 point crew hits eligibility in 6 years (they’ll have 29 and there’s over 250 of them) they’ll hold things up for another 15- 20 years or so. So they guys with 22 and lower are out no matter what happens.
Click to expand...
It all depends on everyone's age and health and willingness to continue to fork over the cash. I would look at who has been drawing tags recently and a number of people in the 23-point class have been drawing tags for years while those with more are holding out for better units. That would continue to happen if changes were not made.

WYG&F advertises all over their website how the preference point systems work with 75/25 split and the benefits of staying in the game to increase your odds....
 
i agree that residents should be considered first... which they are... but why should 90% go to WY residents? They already get OTC deer hunts in premium deer units, and opportunity elk hunts....and what does 1970 have anything to do with changes they are making 50 years later?
 
WapitiBob said:
..
Refund of the cc fee... that's a good one.
Click to expand...

Yes, the alleged 2.5% CC fee should be refunded for all years since WGF began falsely charging it in 2019. If the consumer chooses the refund route instead of allowing their PPs to convert to BPs-squared.

That money is part of the damages calculation and was debated, controlled and intentionally caused by WGF.

The plaintiff's damages would have been about $100/NR/year less if WGF had not intentionally racked up consumer expense in this manner. (~$50 CC fee for moose; ~$50 CC fee for sheep).
 
Exactly. The system Wy built and the funding of the state wildlife management was built on NR funds. The bait and switch that is occurring is bad business. Take the tags or take the money... not both. WY residents cant fund their own wildlife management without NR's, many of the local economies (and outfitters) require NR's too. Not to mention the animals and lands that the animals live on are FEDERAL lands (BLM and National forest) aren't owned by WY! WY has been entrusted to distribute at their discretion, but it still doesn't mean WY owns them.
 
Crampy said:
Yes, the alleged 2.5% CC fee should be refunded for all years since WGF began falsely charging it in 2019. If the consumer chooses the refund route instead of allowing their PPs to convert to BPs-squared.

That money is part of the damages calculation and was debated, controlled and intentionally caused by WGF.

The plaintiff's damages would have been about $100/NR/year less if WGF had not intentionally racked up consumer expense in this manner. (~$50 CC fee for moose; ~$50 CC fee for sheep).
Click to expand...

Evidently you aren't familiar with CC transactions; it's a fee imposed by the card processor and in the case of WG&F is 2.3% on purchases.
 
They also charge to process refunds, 2.5% covers all of it.

On a side note, those refund charges are why AZ doesn't charge $$ up front in the draw.
 
WapitiBob said:
They also charge to process refunds, 2.5% covers all of it.

On a side note, those refund charges are why AZ doesn't charge $$ up front in the draw.
Click to expand...
Funny about that- I talked with some director in their "ops" dept about AZ's process. He claimed that the cc fee wasn't really a driving issue. But, that was just one dude's opinion I imagine.
 
I will say this about charging up front-

Yes, there's a downside to the fees and the "holding on to your money".

There's an upside- you don't have to worry about drawing a tag and then your cc for some reason doesn't go thru. I know for a fact that some folks in AZ lost out on licenses for that reason.

Personally, I like knowing if I'm lucky and my number comes up, I don't have to worry if there was some cc fraud on my card and they put a hold on it just as the G&F is trying to charge it!
 
WapitiBob said:
They also charge to process refunds, 2.5% covers all of it.
Click to expand...

Well...

The best evidence that WGF is dishonest about the 2.5% CC fee is to compare with New Mexico.

NM charges my CC almost $30K every year (entire family). But they do NOT keep a 2.5% CC fee (which would total ~$750). Instead, they refund every penny except the $65 base license ($15 for NR youth) and $13/species app fee.

If the CC/bank was charging NMGFD a 2.5% CC fee on charges that are eventually refunded, then they would be LOSING money on every NR every year.
If you believe WGF, then you also must believe that NMGFD is losing money on every NR who applies.

It is possible that WGF simply negotiates poor contracts with their CC processor. Or that WGF isn't correctly coding the charge/refund on net-zero transactions such that the fees zero out. Or, that WGF doesn't qualify for zeroing out of CC fees on refunds because they hold the money for as long as 5 months. Whereas NM gets the refunds sent back to the CC in as little as 30-45 days.

In any event, WGF controls this and this money is part of the money damages they caused to NR m/s applicants.
 
HikeHunt61 said:
I will say this about charging up front-

Yes, there's a downside to the fees and the "holding on to your money".

There's an upside- you don't have to worry about drawing a tag and then your cc for some reason doesn't go thru. I know for a fact that some folks in AZ lost out on licenses for that reason.

Personally, I like knowing if I'm lucky and my number comes up, I don't have to worry if there was some cc fraud on my card and they put a hold on it just as the G&F is trying to charge it!
Click to expand...
It would be nice to know but on the flip side, the only reason I'm applying for hunt this year is because they don't charge up front. Planning to hunt next year so this year is long odds and I'll make it work if I get lucky but have no interest in leaving that money out there.
 
Crampy said:
Well...

The best evidence that WGF is dishonest about the 2.5% CC fee is to compare with New Mexico.

NM charges my CC almost $30K every year (entire family). But they do NOT keep a 2.5% CC fee (which would total ~$750). Instead, they refund every penny except the $65 base license ($15 for NR youth) and $13/species app fee.

If the CC/bank was charging NMGFD a 2.5% CC fee on charges that are eventually refunded, then they would be LOSING money on every NR every year.
If you believe WGF, then you also must believe that NMGFD is losing money on every NR who applies.

It is possible that WGF simply negotiates poor contracts with their CC processor. Or that WGF isn't correctly coding the charge/refund on net-zero transactions such that the fees zero out. Or, that WGF doesn't qualify for zeroing out of CC fees on refunds because they hold the money for as long as 5 months. Whereas NM gets the refunds sent back to the CC in as little as 30-45 days.

In any event, WGF controls this and this money is part of the money damages they caused to NR m/s applicants.
Click to expand...

WY was eating the CC fee until the Legislature pulled 8 million of Gen funds from their budget.
 
WapitiBob said:
It would be nice to know but on the flip side, the only reason I'm applying for hunt this year is because they don't charge up front. Planning to hunt next year so this year is long odds and I'll make it work if I get lucky but have no interest in leaving that money out there.
Click to expand...
There were many years in my youth I would have applied for a tag if I didn't have to pay in advance. I do think that keeps quite a few people out of the pool on a yearly basis- which is a good thing considering the long draw odds as they stand.
 
DaveD said:
There were many years in my youth I would have applied for a tag if I didn't have to pay in advance. I do think that keeps quite a few people out of the pool on a yearly basis- which is a good thing considering the long draw odds as they stand.
Click to expand...
Ya- I don't think it would be that hard for each G&F to provide an option- pay up front (and feel secure you will get the tag if drawn), or apply and pay later (if you are good with the rodeo of cc working once they say you won).

In AZ, they really botched the 2021 draw, so there was a lot of consternation over the pay later approach. 2022 was smoother, so less worries I guess.
 
WapitiBob said:
They also charge to process refunds, 2.5% covers all of it.
Click to expand...

Yes, WGF has stated that they just absorbed the 2.5% CC fee before 2019. In WGF statements & power points, they were very careful to only talk about how CC fees were burdensome to them in the aggregate. They never made a statement that alleged they were truly paying 2.5% on transactions that were later refunded.

If WGF is telling us the WHOLE truth, then NM (that doesn’t charge 2.5% CC fee), would have to be losing $50-100 on every single NR applicant. So do you believe WGF is lying to you or that NM has somehow continued to operate long term at such a loss? Or does NM just have a sweeter deal with their CC processor?

It’s really a side issue. Whether WGF is fibbing or not, that 2.5% is money damages incurred by consumers that is due to be refunded if the WY legislature completes this bait & switch operation by passing SF0088.
 
I wonder if someone doesn't have a sweetheart credit card deal with the state. It makes no sense that you cannot use a debit card and save the 2.5% cost. I have asked and never get a response as to why. It is a lot of money with high tag prices. Colorado gives you time to pay if your card defaults which is better than Arizona.
 
backcountrybutcher said:
i agree that residents should be considered first... which they are... but why should 90% go to WY residents? They already get OTC deer hunts in premium deer units, and opportunity elk hunts....and what does 1970 have anything to do with changes they are making 50 years later?
Click to expand...
Why shouldn't 100% of the tags go to Residents?

90% is a standard that nearly every other state gives to their Residents, why shouldn't it be the same in Wyoming?
 
BuzzH said:
Meh, not really.

Residents should be the #1 consideration and 90% of the tags, minimum should have been going to residents a long time ago.

Its not 1970 anymore.
Click to expand...
Buzz, how would this change or any proposed changes affect someone who is presently a non res but later become a res. I assume the transfer of PP or BP from non res to res wouldn’t be affected? Just curious
 
muleyczy said:
Buzz, how would this change or any proposed changes affect someone who is presently a non res but later become a res. I assume the transfer of PP or BP from non res to res wouldn’t be affected? Just curious
Click to expand...
For moose and sheep, points stay with you no matter your residency status.

Deer, elk, pronghorn don't because residents don't have a point system for those. Use them as a NR or lose them.
 
backcountrybutcher said:
Exactly. The system Wy built and the funding of the state wildlife management was built on NR funds. The bait and switch that is occurring is bad business. Take the tags or take the money... not both. WY residents cant fund their own wildlife management without NR's, many of the local economies (and outfitters) require NR's too. Not to mention the animals and lands that the animals live on are FEDERAL lands (BLM and National forest) aren't owned by WY! WY has been entrusted to distribute at their discretion, but it still doesn't mean WY owns them.
Click to expand...
This is such a simple but misunderstood principle.......... Legal precedent provides that states surely do 'own' the game within their state regardless of where it lives.-------SS
 
BuzzH said:
...
90% is a standard that nearly every other state gives to their Residents, why shouldn't it be the same in Wyoming?
Click to expand...

I wish residents had gotten 90/10 on Big-5 prior to the big PP price jumps in 2006 ($75/100) and 2018 ($150/$150 m/s). And before the 2.5% CC fee in 2019.

At $7 Preference points, this would never have become a $50M problem. The dollar figures just weren’t big enough and we would all have walked away.

States have made changes, but no other state has tried a "grab & run" with this much money at stake. If a private enterprise was attempting this scheme, the states’ attorney’s office would be having press conferences.

Here, the state IS the offender.

And it looks like they’re going to pass SF0088.
 
Just follow the money. They are trying to generate more revenue just like any business.

Can’t rely on the federal government forever.

“No state relies more on funding from the federal government than Wyoming, where 56.43% of the state’s revenue comes from Washington D.C. Wyoming also has the ninth-largest difference between federal dollars received and income taxes paid. For every $1 dollar in income tax that’s paid in Wyoming, the state receives $1.36 in federal funding. Federal workers also comprise 3.37% of the workforce in Wyoming, the ninth-highest percentage in our study.”
 
Crampy said:
I wish residents had gotten 90/10 on Big-5 prior to the big PP price jumps in 2006 ($75/100) and 2018 ($150/$150 m/s). And before the 2.5% CC fee in 2019.

At $7 Preference points, this would never have become a $50M problem. The dollar figures just weren’t big enough and we would all have walked away.

States have made changes, but no other state has tried a "grab & run" with this much money at stake. If a private enterprise was attempting this scheme, the states’ attorney’s office would be having press conferences.

Here, the state IS the offender.

And it looks like they’re going to pass SF0088.
Click to expand...
SF088 is dead...its now HB200 and the landscape has changed on that bill.
 
A bill needs to pass both house and senate, then goes to the executive for signature.

SF0088 passed 3rd reading 28 to 3.

Good luck quashing BP-squared on the house side when 90.3% of the senate approves of it.

2023-01-19 - Senate - (Y: 28 N: 3) [PASS]
 
Last edited:
Crampy said:
A bill needs to pass both house and senate, then goes to the executive for signature.

SF0088 passed 3rd reading 28 to 3.

Good luck quashing BP-squared on the house side when 90.3% of the senate approves of it.

2023-01-19 - Senate - (Y: 28 N: 3) [PASS]
Click to expand...
Good catch...you're right, it's still the same bill...my mistake.

I can tell you its going to have a tougher time in the House side, I've been in contact with the house TRW chair. It will die if the House doesn't pass it out of committee.

Right now is the time to voice either opposition or amendments to the House TRW...

This gets them all: [email protected]

What I've recommended is a 50-50 split, keeping 50% of the tags under the current system, 50% into the squared bonus point system.

I've sent them the mark-up for the legislation and some are not comfortable with going squared points at all.
 
Last edited:
Just like the senate, the house knows BP-squared must pass for long-term viability of this $4M/year revenue stream (almost all of it NR money). As eventually, with PP, those 12K NR moose/sheep applicants will understand that they are in a $50M Ponzi and bail out. And the $4M/year cash flow stops altogether.

The bill does not have any language supporting refunds for those who experienced this bad faith bait & switch. That's where the class action comes in to put the money back where it belongs.

The WY residents have every right to keep the tags, but they can't keep the money also.
 
Last edited:
Crampy said:
Just like the senate, the house knows BP-squared must pass for long-term viability of this $4M/year revenue stream (almost all of it NR money). As eventually, with PP, those 12K NR moose/sheep applicants will understand that they are in a $50M Ponzi and bail out. And the $4M/year cash flow stops altogether.

The bill does not have any language supporting refunds for those who experienced this bad faith bait & switch. That's where the class action comes in.
Click to expand...
Then do nothing and keep whining...I'm making a run at something that would be better, that I won't ever benefit from.

The bill isn't ever going to contain language about refunds because you aren't afforded one.

You're also wrong, the cash flow from points isn't going to stop no matter what happens. If there is a point system, of any kind, people will continue to play and pay.

Go look how many R and NR hunters enter the draws every year.

I'm done listening to your high-pitched whining, go file the class action lawsuit, I can hardly wait.
 
BuzzH said:
What I've recommended is a 50-50 split, keeping 50% of the tags under the current system, 50% into the squared bonus point system.
Click to expand...
You may have already said in an earlier post but in regards to your 50-50 idea, would an applicants need to pick one or the other or would it be like current where they go through the PP draw then everyone left over goes into the BP draw?
 
mulecreek said:
You may have already said in an earlier post but in regards to your 50-50 idea, would an applicants need to pick one or the other or would it be like current where they go through the PP draw then everyone left over goes into the BP draw?...
Click to expand...
Just like the current system, everyone is in both draws. But I'm not opposed to making people pick one or the other either.
 
nripepi said:
You guys are insane if you don't think people will sue. Non-residents are a drop in the bucket as only those with 22+ on the sheep and 18+ on moose have a leg to stand on as those with less are in better shape with bonus squared. Residents on the other hand that were close to drawing a sheep tag are 10x as many people (90/10) :).
Click to expand...
Apologies for what WY is doing to you after you funded their Ponzi scheme for 22 years. Can’t believe they are trying to keep all the money AND keep the tags they used to lure the money from you.

At 22 points, you’re in a real pickle because it looks like you have to keep buying four more years at $150x2 just in case you can sneak in before the 2027 transition. Because if you take off 2 years of point buying, they’ll zero you out completely. So, the state of WY is probably going to get another $1620 out of you these next 4 years! ($150x8, $30x4 app fees and $150x4 CC fees). Wow.

You don’t vote in WY. Your only “voice” is to cash out points as soon as you can for all species. Problem is, you’re just too invested to walk away – even if they were to offer straight refunds (which they won’t without a lawsuit).
 
WapitiBob said:
These things have a life span; take 90/10 for the big 5.

Forums get lit up
Dept is gonna get sued
Dept will have to refund money
Bill passes
Not another word
No lawsuit, not even an attempted injunction
Click to expand...
People go on buying points and applying for tags

Just finishing it for you
 
Crampy said:
The WY GFD NR Preference Point Ponzi scheme for Moose/Sheep grossed $3.6M in 2022 alone. (12K NR applicants for each of moose/sheep @ $150/PP each).

And WY GFD will sell an NR $150 moose/sheep "Preference Points" on their website even today. Even though they know that they (WGF) and the Task Force fully supported SF0088 that passed out of committee unanimously on 1/17/23. Now, the 2027 transition to BP-squared is only a WY legislature floor vote away from completing the bait and switch.

A $50 million dollar Ponzi scheme just collapsed. Congratulations to WY Residents on getting the 90/10 on Big-5 (well deserved). But this necessitated the dismantling of the Ponzi on the NR side. And now, WY residents aren't happy that residents also are converting to BP-squared effective 2027.

I'm assuming that WGF will be offering refunds when they announce the full package of changes related to the bait & switch? WY won't really try to pull off the bait & switch without a refund offer, will they? And a reimbursement of the alleged 2.5% CC fees would also be in order.

Click to expand...
Oh you poor little baby. Paid for points, got the points which is really all that was promised through the point system…

Not sure what you thought you were getting?
 
Last edited:
elks96 said:
Oh you poor little baby.
...
Click to expand...

If I was a WY resident, I would feel the same way. I would be tickled that my state fleeced NRs to the tune of $50 million as those are dollars that the WY legislature might have otherwise needed from me.

Recent years were ~$430/year per NR (m+s). That wasn’t a $430 donation to WY residents so that your fees/taxes could be lower. Each of those NRs made that payment understanding the implied terms of the deal and that WY owed a duty of good faith and fair dealing.
 
Crampy said:
If I was a WY resident, I would feel the same way. I would be tickled that my state fleeced NRs to the tune of $50 million as those are dollars that the WY legislature might have otherwise needed from me.

Recent years were ~$430/year per NR (m+s). That wasn’t a $430 donation to WY residents so that your fees/taxes could be lower. Each of those NRs made that payment understanding the implied terms of the deal and that WY owed a duty of good faith and fair dealing.
Click to expand...
I think you need to check your math...sheep points are $150 and moose $150...

Advanced 3rd grade math, tells me that's $300 a year....where you getting the extra $130?

Wyoming lived up to what they sold and what was purchased a point.

Nowhere did anything state that the system couldn't or wouldn't change.
 
Crampy said:
If I was a WY resident, I would feel the same way. I would be tickled that my state fleeced NRs to the tune of $50 million as those are dollars that the WY legislature might have otherwise needed from me.

Recent years were ~$430/year per NR (m+s). That wasn’t a $430 donation to WY residents so that your fees/taxes could be lower. Each of those NRs made that payment understanding the implied terms of the deal and that WY owed a duty of good faith and fair dealing.
Click to expand...
I'm confused, you're saying those PP fees went into the general fund to offset taxes residents pay?
 
I hope changes over to 100% bonus point system for non-resident draw. The way the system works now I would have to live two lifetimes, at least, to draw one. My son (14) isn’t much better. At least in a bonus point system, we would have some chance..
 
Crampy said:
Apologies for what WY is doing to you after you funded their Ponzi scheme for 22 years. Can’t believe they are trying to keep all the money AND keep the tags they used to lure the money from you.

At 22 points, you’re in a real pickle because it looks like you have to keep buying four more years at $150x2 just in case you can sneak in before the 2027 transition. Because if you take off 2 years of point buying, they’ll zero you out completely. So, the state of WY is probably going to get another $1620 out of you these next 4 years! ($150x8, $30x4 app fees and $150x4 CC fees). Wow.

You don’t vote in WY. Your only “voice” is to cash out points as soon as you can for all species. Problem is, you’re just too invested to walk away – even if they were to offer straight refunds (which they won’t without a lawsuit).
Click to expand...
Lol, you ain’t getting a refund, class action suit or otherwise. Just stop.
 
Glockster said:
Lol, you ain’t getting a refund, class action suit or otherwise. Just stop.
Click to expand...
22 years, $1000s and your dream destroyed and I should just stop? I am going to be polite and ask for my refund. I don't understand how the 1000 residents affected are not saying anything or are they somewhere? This is not a non-res vs. res issue. It is principle to me. I understood 90/10, but this is too much for those who invested time and money.
 
Crampy said:
If I was a WY resident, I would feel the same way. I would be tickled that my state fleeced NRs to the tune of $50 million as those are dollars that the WY legislature might have otherwise needed from me.

Recent years were ~$430/year per NR (m+s). That wasn’t a $430 donation to WY residents so that your fees/taxes could be lower. Each of those NRs made that payment understanding the implied terms of the deal and that WY owed a duty of good faith and fair dealing.
Click to expand...
No one fleeced you at all. You were sold points. You bought points and you have points. You got exactly what you paid for, points.
 
Call Pat Crank on Monday and ask him about your refund.
(307) 634-2994

Patrick J. Crank ....
Member of the "Wyoming Wildlife Taskforce"
Served as the Wyoming Game & Fish Commissioner for District #1
Was the 33rd Wyoming Attorney General, from 2002 until 2007
 
Not involved in big 3 drawings in WY anymore. Reading along and more or less wishing I hadn’t.

There just seems to be a fundamentally core sense of right and wrong missing from certain people on certain sides of certain borders these days. Surely this character isn’t limited to only their opinions on tags and fees. Too much snark and self servingness to be so contained. Maybe they didn’t have siblings while growing up. Or had relatives who worked at Enron or FTX. Or have a last name of Madoff. Can’t put my finger on what has happened to Americans… or maybe this touch screen and keypad holds the key….
 
Certainly there are folks who have a right to be pissed about things. A year ago, before 90-10 and now maybe PP to BP, someone who thought they were certainly going to get a permit in the next 4-8 years will no longer have much of a chance.

That said- there are lots of things to be pissed about in this world...
 
elks96 said:
No one fleeced you at all. You were sold points. You bought points and you have points. You got exactly what you paid for, points.
Click to expand...
I 100% disagree, I was definitely fleeced. I was bought and sold preference points for decades and the state made millions per year off of us and advertised the benefit of preference points and how the system works in detail. I can't comprehend how people think it is okay to screw people after that period of time?

How many sheep and moose points do you have?

I understand they might want to change a system, but you have to offer a refund. I am the anti sue person on most things, lawyers drive me a bit crazy, but I was taught to always hold up your end of the bargain. I will ask nicely for my money back first.
 
BuzzH said:
I think you need to check your math...sheep points are $150 and moose $150...

Advanced 3rd grade math, tells me that's $300 a year....where you getting the extra $130?

Wyoming lived up to what they sold and what was purchased a point.

Nowhere did anything state that the system couldn't or wouldn't change.
Click to expand...
Application fees, 2.5% to apply and to buy points...it is definitely closer to $400 then $300.

It was 100% implied by the language on the G&F website that discussed how the draw works and the benefits to acquiring preference points that the preference point system was the system. Not that the system was the system for 3 decades and then it can be changed in a blink of an eye after taking 10s of millions.

I understand wanting to make a change, but you need to really think about it and what is fair and how to do it. There are no other examples of something this
egregious.

Wyoming Game and Fish Department - Preference Points

wgfd.wyo.gov wgfd.wyo.gov
 
nripepi said:
Application fees, 2.5% to apply and to buy points...it is definitely closer to $400 then $300.
Click to expand...
I think Buzz has a point- including the app fees and cc fees on the app having nothing to do with the PP costs. You can just buy PPs, right? If you choose to apply as well- you have a chance like everyone else. Maybe I'm confused...
 
HikeHunt61 said:
I think Buzz has a point- including the app fees and cc fees on the app having nothing to do with the PP costs. You can just buy PPs, right? If you choose to apply as well- you have a chance like everyone else. Maybe I'm confused...
Click to expand...
Sure can. It just depends if you apply or not. Neither is necessarily right or wrong. Kind of have to apply to draw though. The 2.5% is a whole different discussion, but definitely added to preference points.
 
nripepi said:
Sure can. It just depends if you apply or not. Neither is necessarily right or wrong. Kind of have to apply to draw though. The 2.5% is a whole different discussion, but definitely added to preference points.
Click to expand...
Right. So the 2.5% of 150 is $3.75. Including the 2.5% of thousands for the app seems off base..
 
HikeHunt61 said:
Right. So the 2.5% of 150 is $3.75. Including the 2.5% of thousands for the app seems off base..
Click to expand...
I can see that side, but you have to apply to draw so it is part of the whole system. I think it is a separate, but related issue.

What about those that did the math and got out with 10-20 points. Should they be able to get back in now and restore their points somehow?

Will I be forced to buy an expensive point each year to keep my bonus points or can I just keep my current points and apply each year? That in itself might be pushing the legal/ethical limits on purging points after decades.
 
nripepi said:
I can see that side, but you have to apply to draw so it is part of the whole system. I think it is a separate, but related issue.

What about those that did the math and got out with 10-20 points. Should they be able to get back in now and restore their points somehow?

Will I be forced to buy an expensive point each year to keep my bonus points or can I just keep my current points and apply each year? That in itself might be pushing the legal/ethical limits on purging points after decades.
Click to expand...
The only reason I continued to buy points was I saw the writing on the wall and knew they were going to have to go to a bonus point system eventually.
 
@nripepi 15 or 16. I knew I’d never catch max but also had a sneaking suspicion this was gonna happen. I let me moose points go as I’ve killed two Shiras moose and spent the money elsewhere. I’ve since drawn and killed a rocky in another state but will probably keep after it in WY if they go bonus.
 
nripepi said:
I can see that side, but you have to apply to draw so it is part of the whole system. I think it is a separate, but related issue.

What about those that did the math and got out with 10-20 points. Should they be able to get back in now and restore their points somehow?

Will I be forced to buy an expensive point each year to keep my bonus points or can I just keep my current points and apply each year? That in itself might be pushing the legal/ethical limits on purging points after decades.
Click to expand...
The regulations state very clearly you lose your points after not applying 2 consecutive years. No points should be reinstated...snooze you lose.
 
yotebuster17 said:
@nripepi 15 or 16. I knew I’d never catch max but also had a sneaking suspicion this was gonna happen. I let me moose points go as I’ve killed two Shiras moose and spent the money elsewhere. I’ve since drawn and killed a rocky in another state but will probably keep after it in WY if they go bonus.
Click to expand...
Yep, I think the same thing in some states I apply in, that eventually the systems may change. I'd rather risk having points than not having them.

Systems have changed in Arizona, Colorado, and Montana since I've been applying. Colorado may change again it's sounding like.
 

Click-a-Pic ... Details & Bigger Photos

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

Screenshot_20200506-133635_Photos.jpg
2672.jpeg
B59365BD-B4AF-4C20-9336-D662271059E1.jpeg
Wide Buck 5-18-23.mp4
44B279F0-2657-4E18-B8D4-18DB4BD52DAE.jpeg
My Colorado Hunt
IMG_3315.jpeg
Screenshot_20220817-113432.png
20181005_123517.jpg
IMG_1894.jpeg
IMG_2910 copy.jpg
20220930_104648.jpg
Back
Top Bottom