HB0112 Big Game & Trophy Licenses

>"In that system they have a
>chance every year when in
>very hard to draw units,
>while under a PP system
>they have NO chance to
>draw until they are in
>a PP pool small anough
>to have a 100% chance
>at the available tags."
>
>Wrong. Our system will be based
>on 50/50 pp/random drawing. Every
>year, every applicant has a
>chance at a tag. This
>also helps keep point pools
>lowers as all different numbers
>of point holders will draw.
>
>
>Topgun,
>If you think my comprehension is
>zero, then you may choose
>to not respond to my
>posts. I actually think you
>are the one who doesn't
>get it. As a non-resident,
> you already have a
>point system and are living
>with it and hunting Wyoming
>every year. You act like
>this will affect you when
>it won't. If you know
>friends who are residents, let
>them speak for themselves. I'm
>sure it would a more
>civil discussion.
>
>Jeff

***I was not referring to you and the PP system I'm talking about is what the NRs have right now. I had no idea what your PP system you're devising includes until you just mentioned it, so how could I be wrong when I wasn't even talking about it?! Yep, I'm hunting Wyoming every year and it sure as heck hasn't been by using that sorry azz PP system they came up with. I'm lucky enough to be able to get leftover tags for the most part and have good hunting because I've hunted out there so many years I know the areas I can do that without investing much, if anything, in the PP scheme. I do have 5PPs for deer and wish I had never got caught up in it because the PP creep is such that the one unit I'm interested in keeps going up every year, which is another big negative in straight PP systems we're stuck with if you're not in it fromt the year of inception.
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-15-14 AT 07:38PM (MST)[p]OK wapiti, I guess I should have said a smaller group of different hunters, I mistakenly omitted the word "different"

And I mean different hunters from the year or years prior
 
>
>"You act like this will affect
>you when it won't. If
>you know friends who are
>residents, let them speak for
>themselves. I'm sure it would
>a more civil discussion."
>
>Well said!


***Being retired for some time and financially secure, if I end up moving out there one of these days like I might, it sure as he** WILL affect me, so don't tell me what I can speak for or against!!! I already spend a couple months in Wyoming most years and it's like my second home and may be number one in the future. The discussion will remain civil as long as my voice is just as equal as any of the rest of you!
 
>"There will be a smaller group
>of hunters drawing tags with
>a random draw system than
>with a bonus point or
>preference point system, that's a
>fact."
>
>Pretty plain what you said.




**That's exactly what I was referring to when I disagreed with piper. He and JM77 can say what they want to now, but that was posted by piper in black and white and was the reason I said he was wrong.
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-15-14 AT 10:40PM (MST)[p]>***Being retired for some time and
>financially secure, if I end
>up moving out there one
>of these days like I
>might, it sure as he**
>WILL affect me, so don't
>tell me what I can
>speak for or against!!!
>I already spend a couple
>months in Wyoming most years
>and it's like my second
>home and may be number
>one in the future.
>The discussion will remain civil
>as long as my voice
>is just as equal as
>any of the rest of
>you!

***I was not referring to you and the PP system I'm talking about is what the NRs have right now.

So which is it Topgun, you talking about NR system of PPs or the proposed resident one?
And no one has told you to stay out of this discussion, including me. I said you may choose not to respond to me if you think I don't comprehend.
And you do have a problem about having a civil discussion, but that's ok with me. A person won't be judged on their mistakes, but by how they handle the fallout.

>"There will be a smaller group
>of hunters drawing tags with
>a random draw system than
>with a bonus point or
>preference point system, that's a
>fact."

Yes, this may not be the perfect way to say this, but I understood what piper meant the first time, because he understands the basics between random and PP. He wasn't talking about license numbers and it's obvious different drawing methods don't change that.

Oh, and Topgun, your PP system is 75/25 so every NR has a chance to draw a tag.
 
Buzz your the only wyoming resident on here thats sboots 6 goats, 3 elk, and 8 deer every year.
For me it has nothing to do with opportunity it has to do with fairness. As long as every other state in the west can sleep with the 90%/10% cut we can to.
Hopefully we get the nongame and g&f pensions taken care of this session. Next year when HB 112 resurfaces we'll attach some additional funding kinda like it looked this year.
 
jm77---First off, in case you haven't been reading my posts in this Forum since I got back from my trip in November, I have calmed down and AM remaining civil. Secondly, it's very nice that you understood what Piper meant, but that's not what he said a number of times, including the referenced quote that WapitiBob posted with his added comment that agreed with my take on it. Now that we have that cleared up and we're all on the same page, I was referring to the present NR system and I obviously know it's a 75/25 split. To say everyone has a chance to draw a tag may be true, but in actuality the chance is very low in most of the hard to draw units. I have/had not even read the Bill your buddy is pushing and now I know from your statement that it's a 50/50 split. That's quite a bit better than the present NR system, but I do not favor any kind of a PP system because they all go bad after a number of years with PP creep, etc., especially if you're not in on one from the get go when it's created. Sooner or later many are crying for changes to be made and if they do get changes instituted the people who have invested a lot of money in PPs get screwed because their PPs are then devalued. IMHO a random draw with a set time out period for the hardest to draw units would be an even better system if any changes are to be made. Think about that as far as even being more fair. I think you will see that it would generally turn over people faster and give everyone a better chance each year to draw a tag in a shorter amount of time than your 50/50 split would do.
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-16-14 AT 08:47AM (MST)[p]Back to HB 112 feduptwo said:

"Buzz your the only wyoming resident on here thats sboots 6 goats, 3 elk, and 8 deer every year.
For me it has nothing to do with opportunity it has to do with fairness. As long as every other state in the west can sleep with the 90%/10% cut we can to.
Hopefully we get the nongame and g&f pensions taken care of this session. Next year when HB 112 resurfaces we'll attach some additional funding kinda like it looked this year."

Yes, this bill will be back, but I will push to exclude elk, deer and antelope because of the fiscal consequences. I think there is an excellent chance to pass this bill with that amendment. Other residents don't agree with me, but until other funding methods are secured, it is not prudent to include the 'bread & butter' species and the legislature does look at fiscal changes that are caused by bills.
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-16-14 AT 09:13AM (MST)[p]
>IMHO a random draw with
>a set time out period
>for the hardest to draw
>units would be an even
>better system if any changes
>are to be made. Think
>about that as far as
>even being more fair. I
>think you will see that
>it would generally turn over
>people faster and give everyone
>a better chance each year
>to draw a tag in
>a shorter amount of time
>than your 50/50 split would
>do.


OK Topgun, let's see what a 3 year waiting period does for area 31 elk.
2013 odds 3.9% for resident hunters
Year 2 4.1% odds of success without successful 2013 applicants
Year 3 4.2%
Year 4 4.4%
Year 5 4.2% because 2013 applicants are back in(this is actually a 4 year waiting period)
And remember, this does not figure in ANY new hunters!!

I think it's easy to see a 3 year waiting period does nothing to solve the current problem.
 
>LAST EDITED ON Feb-16-14
>AT 09:13?AM (MST)
>
>
>>IMHO a random draw with
>>a set time out period
>>for the hardest to draw
>>units would be an even
>>better system if any changes
>>are to be made. Think
>>about that as far as
>>even being more fair. I
>>think you will see that
>>it would generally turn over
>>people faster and give everyone
>>a better chance each year
>>to draw a tag in
>>a shorter amount of time
>>than your 50/50 split would
>>do.
>
>
>OK Topgun, let's see what a
>3 year waiting period does
>for area 31 elk.
>2013 odds 3.9% for resident hunters
>
>Year 2 4.1% odds
>of success without successful 2013
>applicants
>Year 3 4.2%
>
>Year 4 4.4%
>
>Year 5 4.2%
>because 2013 applicants are back
>in(this is actually a 4
>year waiting period)
>And remember, this does not figure
>in ANY new hunters!!
>
>I think it's easy to see
>a 3 year waiting period
> does nothing to solve
>the current problem.


***Okay, now you've shot down my idea using a unit that has such a low success rate for drawing that many people probably wouldn't even put in for it. I won't take the time to question your percentages since I respect your integrity. However, now please do the same thing for that unit with your proposed Bill to show everyone how your 50/50 greatly enhances one's chance of drawing!
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-16-14 AT 12:08PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Feb-16-14 AT 12:01?PM (MST)

jm77,

I think it depends on what problem you're trying to solve.

The trouble with both of these bills is that most are in a huge fuggin' hurry to put the cart in front of the horse. Sure way to get you nowhere fast, and end up with a bill thats as fugged up as a football bat.


Thats the biggest question I've always had regarding either the PP bills or the NR reduction to 10%.

Honestly, the only real thought that goes into either bill from the Resident side is how is it going to INCREASE my odds of drawing a tag. Want proof? Look no farther than Larry Hicks...he'd kick everyone else to the curb to increase his chances at another tag. He refuses to listen to anything but what will get him his next tag. NO thought is given to the realized implications of what you're passing. Nor is there that much factual debate or proof, that what you're implementing will solve your problems.

I've heard numerous complaints about some "lucky" people drawing tags 2-3 years in row. If your goal is to keep that from happening, there is NO question that a waiting period on tags that have less than 50% draw odds will stop that from happening.

If your goal is to increase draw odds, probably not that significant. But, it WOULD keep hunters from ever drawing back to back tags in difficult to draw units. That (perceived) problem would be solved.

What wont happen by limiting NR's to 10% of the moose, sheep, goat, and bison...is for the INDIVIDUAL draw odds to see much of a bump. Neither waiting periods or reducing NR quotas will result in a huge bump in draw odds.

What makes a lot of sense to me for Moose, Sheep, Goat, and Bison is once-in-a-lifetime HARVEST, plus the current system of a 5 year waiting period if you draw and dont harvest.

As to preference points, I can tell you that the 50-50 split makes the bill much more palatable to me, as does the way party applications are to be handled. However, I think that those clamoring for a PP bill are going to be sadly mistaken in how much their odds acutally increase for the (again perceived) best tags in the state. I'm also convinced that we're creating a PP system because of those very few hardest to draw antelope, deer, and elk tags. Hell of a price to pay for a handful of units.

I can assure everyone, that 10 years down the Resident PP road, there will be a lot, as in thousands, of Residents with max points for deer, elk, and pronghorn. When that happens, there will be those wanting different changes to increase their odds again...its a never ending cycle.

Point systems cause a dramatic change in how, where, when, and even WHO applies in the draws...and how long people are willing to wait to hunt the areas they choose.

Its a huge game changer and a lot of that change is not for the better, and a lot of it actually decreases drawing odds.

My biggest problem with many of these bills is the real lack of vision, and thinking about nobody but yourself that goes on when these things are introduced or debated.

Some honesty about what impacts you're having, how to mitigate those impacts, and being honest would be a good first place to start.

Look at how much the PP bill changed this year from last. That wouldnt have happened if that bullchit of a bill would have passed last session.

We need to be prudent in what we wish for.
 
>Back to HB 112 feduptwo said:
>
>
>"Buzz your the only wyoming resident
>on here thats sboots 6
>goats, 3 elk, and 8
>deer every year.
>For me it has nothing to
>do with opportunity it has
>to do with fairness. As
>long as every other state
>in the west can sleep
>with the 90%/10% cut we
>can to.
>Hopefully we get the nongame and
>g&f pensions taken care of
>this session. Next year when
>HB 112 resurfaces we'll attach
>some additional funding kinda like
>it looked this year."
>
>Yes, this bill will be back,
>but I will push to
>exclude elk, deer and antelope
>because of the fiscal consequences.
>I think there is an
>excellent chance to pass this
>bill with that amendment. Other
>residents don't agree with me,
>but until other funding methods
>are secured, it is not
>prudent to include the 'bread
>& butter' species and the
>legislature does look at fiscal
>changes that are caused by
>bills.


***Yep, what the heck, if everybody else is doing it why not us too! It sort of sounds like you're admitting that just maybe you put the cart in front of the horse with this Bill if it also didn't include a way to make up ALL the monies lost by creating the new system!
 
Topgun said:

***"Yep, what the heck, if everybody else is doing it why not us too! It sort of sounds like you're admitting that just maybe you put the cart in front of the horse with this Bill if it also didn't include a way to make up ALL the monies lost by creating the new system!"

No Topgun, we were told WYSFW pushed HB 112. I had nothing to do with it, although license allocation is a hot topic, getting hotter by the day in Wy.

I have talked with the bills sponser and he agrees elk, deer and antelope may be going to far. There will be a slighty different bill the next time. With the smaller tags numbers involved with moose, sheep, goat and bison, revenue is not an issue.
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-16-14 AT 12:24PM (MST)[p]Topgun,

Its not even the lack of thought given to how you're going to come up with just the LOST money...

We have budget problems and need revenue above just covering the losses we'd see with simply mitigating the lost NR tag revenue. Thats making a huge assumption we COULD mitigate that lost revenue.

Those supporting, and those that did support this bill, are playing right into WYSFW and Bob Wharffs hands.

Further strap the GF for a perception of better chances at a tag...and the Residents were there wanting it to happen.

Unbelievable...

No...I mean...UNBELIEVABLE!!!!
 
jm77,

Really???

With the smaller tags numbers involved with moose, sheep, goat and bison, revenue is not an issue.

Well, then WTF is the Wyoming Sportsmens Alliance doing? I'd argue that any reduction in revenue is significant when you're cutting programs left and right.

In particular when considering the lack of Legislative support that any fee increases are getting.

I guess we can do without a few more programs...
 
>LAST EDITED ON Feb-16-14
>AT 12:24?PM (MST)
>

>
>Those supporting, and those that did
>support this bill, are playing
>right into WYSFW and Bob
>Wharffs hands.
>t

You hit the nail on the head. And to be honest with you, the SFW model is starting to look attractive compared to squeezing out the non-residents.
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-16-14 AT 12:37PM (MST)[p]I'm going to mention some of the public land antelope areas I'm familiar with, Buck antelope areas 87,88,89,90,91,92,93,95,96,107,112.
Last year those areas had a combined total of 6623 resident applicants for 2410 tags, so the odds were a little better than a 30% average

Under a pure preference point system like Colorado has for deer, Virtually everyone who applies would draw a tag within 3 years, a 50% split like Utah has would make a big difference in spreading out the tags to different hunters, and even a bonus point system would increase the availability of tags to different hunters over the random draw.

Of course every area has slightly different odds and Im generalizing, but there shouldn't be any doubt about point systems being a more equitable way to distribute tags for Wyoming antelope hunters.
 
BuzzH
Do you really think this is me thinking about myself or are you speaking about all those that want PPs?

The bill last year when changed to 50/50 was also a good bill. Trust me, if you really want to see me fight for something, wait to see what happens when we move to the regulation stage of this. The BEST bill we could have will have the fewest details. Then we could come together on making regulation that works, like making sure residents don't have party averaging.

The PP system for moose and sheep has relatively stayed the same all these years. I don't hear a huge outcry from those that want it changed. Even with those low numbers of tags, more and more people are drawing both species with less then max points in the 19th year.

Saying people who want PPs are being selfish may go too far. I happen to think many who don't want the PP system are being selfish because they are lucky in drawing tags and don't want that to end. Maybe we are all selfish!! Personally, I get more than enough of my share of hunting these days. Either way I'm happy with my past success and look towards other goals I may make for myself. I'm one of the few that doesn't get too worked up when I don't draw.
 
>jm77,
>
>Really???
>
>With the smaller tags numbers involved
>with moose, sheep, goat and
>bison, revenue is not an
>issue.
>
>Well, then WTF is the Wyoming
>Sportsmens Alliance doing? I'd argue
>that any reduction in revenue
>is significant when you're cutting
>programs left and right.
>
>In particular when considering the lack
>of Legislative support that any
>fee increases are getting.
>
>I guess we can do without
>a few more programs...


Settle down big fella, have you done the math? Not that much money! We can easily make up the difference.

Hope we can talk a little about the Alliance tomorrow.
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-16-14 AT 12:53PM (MST)[p]jm77,

No, I'm not specifically talking about you.

I'm saying ZERO thought was put into last years bill. I contend that this years bill is also flawed.

How are you going to reduce the 75-25 split called for in the bill to a 50-50 split?

Going to be tough sledding on that, and I dont think it will be legal to reduce the split to 50-50.

Again, the PP system for moose and sheep obvioulsy isnt working or we'd not be talking about reducing NR quotas now we would we? If its working so well, leave the NR quotas alone then.

Thats the problem, in every single state that has a point system, they morph over time and turn into chit. That usually happens when people pull their heads out and realize they've screwed more people than they've helped.

My response? Should have thought about that before you passed the law.

The only thing more unfair than a point system is changing them over time.
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-16-14 AT 01:27PM (MST)[p]Lots of assuming going on...and I can assure you, there will be people with more than 5-6 points that still havent drawn tags with 30% draw odds.

Point creep is not imagined...its reality.

Plus, you fugged yourself with your own logic as an opening move, because it was the only move you had.

The system wont be a pure preference system, from 25-50% of the tags wont be in the preference pool.

That alone, assures you that not everyone will cycle through a 30% odds area in 3 years like you claim.

You doubled the number of available preference tags.
 
>LAST EDITED ON Feb-16-14
>AT 12:24?PM (MST)
>
>Topgun,
>
>Its not even the lack of
>thought given to how you're
>going to come up with
>just the LOST money...
>
>We have budget problems and need
>revenue above just covering the
>losses we'd see with simply
>mitigating the lost NR tag
>revenue. Thats making a huge
>assumption we COULD mitigate that
>lost revenue.
>
>Those supporting, and those that did
>support this bill, are playing
>right into WYSFW and Bob
>Wharffs hands.
>
>Further strap the GF for a
>perception of better chances at
>a tag...and the Residents were
>there wanting it to happen.
>
>
>Unbelievable...
>
>No...I mean...UNBELIEVABLE!!!!

Holy crap, Popgun just got taken to the wood shed by his hero! I wander if Buzz will get a fowl text message like everyone else that calls his B.S, too funny...
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-16-14 AT 01:44PM (MST)[p]I'm going to mention some of
>the public land antelope areas
>I'm familiar with, Buck antelope
>areas 87,88,89,90,91,92,93,95,96,107,112.
>Last year those areas had a
>combined total of 6623 resident
>applicants for 2410 tags, so
>the odds were a little
>better than a 30% average
>
>
>Under a pure preference point system
>like Colorado has for deer,
>Virtually everyone who
>applies would draw a tag
>within 3 years,
>a 50% split like Utah
>has would make a big
>difference in spreading out the
>tags to different hunters, and
>even a bonus point system
>would increase the availability of
>tags to different hunters over
>the random draw.
>
>Of course every area has slightly
>different odds and Im generalizing,
>but there shouldn't be any
>doubt about point systems being
>a more equitable way to
>distribute tags for Wyoming antelope
>hunters.
>


***You're dang right every area has different odds and they are more than "slightly different". You're reason for wanting a PP system is because you're not drawing units you apply for that have a very slim chance of drawing like elk unit 31 that jm77 just referred to in his post back to me. You reference all those units with a 30% chance of drawing saying that almost all the people would draw within three years of applying if it was under a PP system. That may be close to the case in a pure PP system with those odds and minimal creep, but it doesn't solve your predicament of a unit like 31 elk that has less than a 4% chance of drawing under ANY system! How many years will it take for you to be assured of drawing that 31 tag under your PP system? The answer is one heck of a lot of years, if ever, for assurance that you can draw it ONE time compared to a random draw where you might draw it quite a few times! The only way a PP system works is if there are enough tags available every year for the number of applicants such that a complete turnover occurs every few years. That certainly will not happen when a unit has a 4% chance at drawing a tag.
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-16-14 AT 01:35PM (MST)[p]>Topgun,
>>
>>Its not even the lack of
>>thought given to how you're
>>going to come up with
>>just the LOST money...
>>
>>We have budget problems and need
>>revenue above just covering the
>>losses we'd see with simply
>>mitigating the lost NR tag
>>revenue. Thats making a huge
>>assumption we COULD mitigate that
>>lost revenue.
>>
>>Those supporting, and those that did
>>support this bill, are playing
>>right into WYSFW and Bob
>>Wharffs hands.
>>
>>Further strap the GF for a
>>perception of better chances at
>>a tag...and the Residents were
>>there wanting it to happen.
>>
>>
>>Unbelievable...
>>
>>No...I mean...UNBELIEVABLE!!!!
>
>Holy crap, Popgun just got taken
>to the wood shed by
>his hero! I wander if
>Buzz will get a fowl
>text message like everyone else
>that calls his B.S, too
>funny...




***You might want to go to that woodshed and learn some reading comprehenson there Mr. birdhntr because BuzzH was agreeing with me when he addressed me in that post, LOL! BuzzH and I are on the same page and in complete agreement all the way down the line on this PP system crappola, LOL! Now take a hike and learn how to read if you have nothing more than BS to post like happens most of the time!!!
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-16-14 AT 03:21PM (MST)[p]No shi# Shirley, duh. and no, many of those antelope areas I noted have pretty close to the same odds.
I never put in for 31 elk, and the draw odds in those kinds of areas are prohibitive no matter what system is used.

I don't think there should be a preference point system in species that have general tags available, that's where you get point creep.

Nearly all draw odds are going up in every state, you can thank businesses like the Hunting Fool and Eastmans, the internet, Cabelas TAGs, there are multiple reasons why its getting harder to draw.
There isn't much you can do about it, calling all of it point creep doesn't make much sense though, point creep does happen, most notably in states where there are general tags available in the same species, but basically there are too many people wanting to hunt these days, and we are too deadly and mobile to allow the kind of hunter pressure on game that was common in the past.

Cut it as you wish, the point is that bonus systems like Nevada has or preference systems like many states have, all distribute tags to a larger group of different hunters over the years.
 
"How are you going to reduce the 75-25 split called for in the bill to a 50-50 split?

Going to be tough sledding on that, and I dont think it will be legal to reduce the split to 50-50.

Again, the PP system for moose and sheep obvioulsy isnt working or we'd not be talking about reducing NR quotas now we would we? If its working so well, leave the NR quotas alone then."

Buzz,
The 75/25 I'm sure was so the 50/50 didnt get turned into 25/75. Get it? Was not our idea. Don't worry that will be changed to 50/50 or I will testify against it.(you heard it here first)

There is an amendment on the language for youth hunters also. These problems arise when sponsers get caught up in other things and don't communicate with LOS.

The license allocation to 90/10 has NOTHING to do with PP. How many times have you heard people talk about giving 20-25% of those tags to the NR? I've heard it plenty and never once was it a complaint about PP. A lot of those complaints come from hunters who apply in other states and see as a NR they are getting 10% or less of those tags.

I know what a free spirit you are Buzz, but truly how many sportsman do you know that are happy with the G&F? You need to hear the stuff I hear and talk to these sportsman(and legislators) about license fees. You will not win many hearts in Wyoming preaching the stuff you do about non-residents. And I say that not to cut down anyone who comes to Wyoming or you. I have made lifelong friends meeting non-residents in the field. I have discussed this issue with them and while they will take all they can get, they realize licenses like moose, sheep and mtn goat at a premium.
Also, most all of them love the Wyo PP system. In fact they study the odds and laugh all the way to Wy with their tags in pockets, many times drawing more often than us residents.
 
>With a fully funded G&F it
>would be a different story...but
>thats far from a reality.
>


Buzz,
Things really aren't as bad as they seem...
 
>No shi# Shirley, duh. and
>no, many of those antelope
>areas I noted have pretty
>close to the same odds.
>
>I never put in for
>31 elk, and the draw
>odds in those kinds of
>areas are prohibitive no matter
>what system is used.
>
>I don't think there should be
>a preference point system in
>species that have general tags
>available, that's where you get
>point creep.
>
>Nearly all draw odds are going
>up in every state, you
>can thank businesses like the
>Hunting Fool and Eastmans, the
>internet, Cabelas TAGs, there are
>multiple reasons why its getting
>harder to draw.
>There isn't much you can do
>about it, calling all of
>it point creep doesn't make
>much sense though, point creep
>does happen, most notably in
>states where there are general
>tags available in the same
>species, but basically there are
>too many people wanting to
>hunt these days, and we
>are too deadly and mobile
>to allow the kind of
>hunter pressure on game that
>was common in the past.
>
>
>Cut it as you wish, the
>point is that bonus systems
>like Nevada has or preference
>systems like many states have,
>all distribute tags to a
>larger group of different hunters
>over the years.


***Yes, a different set of persons would get those tags each year under a PP system. I've never argued that, but it is not a LARGER group like you keep stating because tag numbers do not change. We cleared the air that you mean different people, so let's move on to your statement that started out your post above.
You've now just shot yourself in the foot when you fully agree and admit that a system like you want won't do a fuggin thing to help you on the real low percentage tags that you or anyone else might apply for and then cry because you can't draw one. I believe you started your PP statements many moons ago that you wanted a PP system over a random one so you had a better chance in those kind of units. If I'm wrong, I apologize, but I believe that's what your major debate has been with me and BuzzH regarding a PP system.

Now let's talk about your incorrect statements about PP creep. It is more than real, is getting worse, and if you aren't in any of the systems where it's happening like I am then you talk with no real knowledge of what's happening. It also has nothing to do with whether a tag is for a general unit or a LE one. All of the antelope units in WY are LE tags, as are all the NR elk units, including the general tag that involves about 50 units that are lumped in as one collective tag. Don't tell me there isn't PP creep or whatever else you want to call it in a large percentage of all of those LE units because it's taking a lot longer to draw even units that aren't on the radar as in the top 20 in just the seven years our NR system has been in use! Where I had a good chance at an antelope tag every year it now takes 3 or 4 years at a minimum in the regular PP draw. If I was buying PPs for the elk unit where I hunt it would now take me 6-8 years and it keeps going up about 1/2 PP per year!

The one thing we can agree on is that there are way too many people applying for the available tags in what many consider the better units and there is not much that can be done about that. However, we can hope that more habitat work is done throughout the western states to make more acreage that will support more animals.
 
Your wrong about the hard to draw stuff, where did you come up with that? its the stuff like Wyoming antelope and Colorado deer where preference points really help,

Drawing area 31 elk in Idaho is just as tough as area 31 in Wyoming, it takes lots of luck and always will.
I know some about point systems, grew up in Nevada, and have been playing the game before there was such a thing.

on one hand I like Colorado's pp system for deer, but in my opinion the same system really sucks for elk.

How point systems relate to nonresident percentage cuts is in hunter frustration, and random draws cause frustration because they spread the tags to a smaller group of different hunters.
Everyone wants to hunt, and many people take their hunting quite seriously.
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-16-14 AT 06:34PM (MST)[p]Piper,

Pretty bold statement when it takes 10-15+ points to draw the better deer hunts in Colorado.

I drew a 3rd season hunt last year with 7 points...hunting once every 8 years really isnt great IMO.

Hard to call that a successful system.
 
Piper---I told you that I might be incorrect in regards to that statement and offered an apology if I was. It's hard to remember sometimes who said what when stuff like this is discussed over a year or two. One thing I'm definitely sure of is that IMHO there should have been a NR vote allowed regarding our PP system before it was forced on us by the residents 8 years ago. All it did was allow more money to be siphoned off from the NRs for the G&F budget so your resident tags could stay as cheap as they are. Unfortunately, we got screwed on that one and we didn't even have a voice in a matter that strictly involes us! Lastly, I have to laugh at that final random draw comment you made. By making that statement, it would seem that you don't think there is a lot of frustration involved with our PP system. Let me tell you that from the comments made by many other NRs on other sites I'm on there is more than a little by most of those who talk about the system we're forced to play!
 
Buzz, the area we draw in Colorado took 2 or three points the last two times, now it takes 3 or 4 points, its a great hunt, but tags are pretty limited, that's why its hard to draw.
There is opportunity to hunt Co every year for residents, the well known areas just got famous, point system or not that's bound to happen, a random draw wouldn't help.
Check the odds of drawing an area 40 or 45 deer hunt in Idaho, not good.

Topgun, I think the point system in Wyoming stinks also, and the way it was done smells just as bad.
 
"One thing I'm definitely sure of is that IMHO there should have been a NR vote allowed regarding our PP system before it was forced on us by the residents 8 years ago"

Residents forced nothing on you Topgun,the G&F did an independant survey of non-residents and a clear majority wanted the PP system. Outfitters backed it of course...
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-16-14 AT 07:56PM (MST)[p]>"One thing I'm definitely sure of
>is that IMHO there should
>have been a NR vote
>allowed regarding our PP system
>before it was forced on
>us by the residents 8
>years ago"
>
>Residents forced nothing on you Topgun,the
>G&F did an independant survey
>of non-residents and a clear
>majority wanted the PP system.
>Outfitters backed it of course...
>


***I"ll call BS on that one unless you can produce the "independent survey" that a "clear majority" of NRs wanted it! If that was the case, a person like myself would have at least heard of their plan to institute one seeing as how I hunt there every year and have since 1992. They might have fed you that baloney, but if it were true then why do the majority of NRs that have to buy the PPs hate the damn system so much? I guess we were also the ones who decided it would be nice to pay $30, $40, and $50 for each PP! Outfitters would back anything if they thought it would make them a buck or two, LOL!
 
>***I"ll call BS on that one
>unless you can produce the
>"independent survey" that a "clear
>majority" wanted! If that
>was the case a person
>like myself wold have at
>least heard of their plan
>to institute one seeing as
>how I hunt there every
>year and have since 1992.
> They might have told
>you that, but if it
>were true then why do
>the majority of NRs that
>have to buy the PPs
>hate the damn system so
>much? I guess
>we were also the ones
>who decided it would be
>nice to pay $30, $40,
>and $50 fior each one,
>LOL! Outfitters would back anything
>if they thought it would
>them a buck or two,
>LOL!


As a matter of fact, I have a copy of it somewhere here in my office. I don't just make this stuff up...
 
jm77---No need to take your valuable time looking for it. What I should have said is that if there was such a thing that it was obviously done such that the G&F could put in a PP system that they wanted in order to get more NR money. That would be simple to do by saying they ran a survey that produced results showing NRs wanted one and putting a few pieces of paperwork together to back themselves up if it was ever contested. There is no way we, as individual NRs, could really prove there wasn't one done. However, what NR in their right mind would ask for a system that many times costs us what it does with little payback in a reasonable amount of time?! There may be a few, but not a vast majority that you stated the survey showed.
 
Topgun
It was a clear majority, something over 60% wanted it. Residents were 50/50 depending on question. So the Dept pursued NR points only. If I find it(it's buried here somewhere) I will look to see if there was a question about being willing to pay for it.

Credit the outfitters getting involved on the cost of points. A later surveyed showed residents had a small majority, but the those against were more severly against.(2008)
 
It's really weird that as involved as I am in everything hunting related in Wyoming, and have been for many years, that I've never heard of such a survey involving NRs until you mentioned it this evening. I find it hard to believe that survey could have been done properly on the up and up to come up with results like you mentioned!
 
Well TG there are a few of us NR's out there not in our right mind. Myself and our group like the current PP system. It currently ensures we get to hunt our chosen area frequently since it only requires 0-1 points generally, depending on species.

In fact I know quite a few folks that like the wy NR system. But I suppose it's perspective. With 0-1 points I can have a deer hunting experience my home state of Oregon can't offer with any point level.
 
With 0-1 points for any WY species you can have an experience our crap state can't offer, minus less than a handful of hunts.
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-17-14 AT 10:50AM (MST)[p]>Well TG there are a few
>of us NR's out there
>not in our right mind.
> Myself and our group
>like the current PP system.
> It currently ensures we
>get to hunt our chosen
>area frequently since it only
>requires 0-1 points generally, depending
>on species.
>
>In fact I know quite a
>few folks that like the
>wy NR system. But
>I suppose it's perspective.
>With 0-1 points I can
>have a deer hunting experience
>my home state of Oregon
>can't offer with any point
>level.


***Well heck, you must be one of the few I said existed, LOL, and if you're happy hunting an area that takes no more than 1PP, why wouldn't you be just as happy with a random system that would probably allow you to hunt it every year just for the cost of the license itself? There is generally always more than one way to look at something!
 
TG,

I guess I like to know I am going for sure in order to plan my fall schedule. The point system allows me to do that. A random draw would mean "maybe" I am going which makes it a whole lot tougher to plan a schedule. To each their own.
 
>TG,
>
>I guess I like to know
>I am going for sure
>in order to plan my
>fall schedule. The point
>system allows me to do
>that. A random draw
>would mean "maybe" I am
>going which makes it a
>whole lot tougher to plan
>a schedule. To each
>their own.


***Being retired for 12 years does give me a little different perspective on stuff like that and I can see where you're coming from if you're still a working stiff! However, you're actually talking about real good odds in either a PP or random system when you're talking about a unit like you mentioned.
 
Holy Chit....I have missed this thread for a week. Interesting read. Having said that, I am unsure about Pipers comment in #86.

You pushed for non resi cuts in G&H because the pressure was too much? You are joking, yes? Can't every last resident in the state of WY hunt that on our general deer tag? To take that further, if we travel from the east side of the state & can't find a deer up the Grey's, we can always go shoot a dink in 135 on the way home (later dates) because we have "traveled & can't come home skunked"??

That is reality Piper. I can't believe you said non-resi's are the "pressure" in G or H. If you are worried about pressure, get those two in a limited quota for residents.....otherwise you are not being truthful & kinda sounding like Buzz says.....a touch selfish!

Of all the dialogue here....at least we are talking, but please no more making up chit. If you think I am off base, I live in G....lots of WY plates here that don't have 13 as the first number during huntin season.

Carry on.
 
This bill would only weed out NR money. There will be a huge decrease in the number of NR who start out applying for Wyoming their first time if it passes. It already takes me 4 years to draw a region G general deer tag and you residents get to hunt it every year. With a 50% decrease in NR tags, drawing this general tag will take 8 years! Wow sorry but the time, effort and money to draw this might be too much.
 
Forgot one thing.....whether you are for, or not for, a point system is up to a lot of debate.

But, how can you recruit 12 year old kids to hunt when 30 somethings are 15 points deep in a system & still haven't drawn?

If I am 12, I will just play the X-box instead. Does anyone get that? While we beech & moan, very few of the next generation of hunters can even hunt if they want to....and I am not just talking about here in WY. For that reason, I do not like the points, even with their proven merit. And, I do not have kids....but at some point they need to be involved without having to climb a Mt Everest of points just to get introduced to hunting. Sometimes we are our own worst enemy for cryin out loud.

Jeez, at some point, it's gotta be about the kids with all of this. Otherwise, we are done.

OK, carry on!
 
Typical worthless argument about kids not hunting. Fact is if a preference point law passes, some percentage of tags will still be random draw. On top of that, there are still general season deer & elk tags including a ton of left over tags for antelope, deer and elk. There are plenty of other opportunities with waterfowl, upland game, small game, predators, blah, blah, blah, etc. If you can't get a kid into hunting because he can't have a limited quota elk tag his first year or two out with all those other possibilities, then let him play his x-box because he was never gonna be a hunter anyway...
 
You missed it BBB, at some point that kid will want to hunt LQ like you do. When that happens, he is waaayyyy behind in points.

I understand your points about the other hunts & we do have general tags here, so WY is different in that respect. Lots of other places a kid has no chance to hunt big game because of points & point creep.

It is what it is.
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-18-14 AT 10:04AM (MST)[p]ASB---Those were some very good comments you made in your posts. I'm glad you called attention to the piper comment to cut the NR tags in Regions G & H to reduce pressure. As an a NR that hasn't hunted that area, I wasn't going to say anything without first hand knowledge, but I know it's a general tag for residents and from what I've heard on various threads on different websites besides MM, there are an awful lot of residents hunting it and it sounds like something needs to be done. Whether it's as you mentioned by going to LE units or trying something else may be needed in the future. Oh, and God forbid if a kid could possibly draw a tag before 3BB because that just isn't right!!!
 
>>>Get used to this, it may
>>>not pass this session, but
>>>it's not going away.
>>
>>Can we get an amen from
>>ya brother...
>>
>>Just got an email back from
>>my House rep. He
>>voted against the 10% increase
>>on license fee's as he
>>thinks non residents should be
>>paying more than 10%.
>>Interesting? He also pointed
>>out he wants to see
>>what the Senate comes up
>>with on their G&F funding
>>bill. He also indicated
>>he didn't think 0112 would
>>go anywhere with this being
>>a budget session as they
>>have too many bills to
>>address. However, he felt
>>confident the matter will be
>>back next year...
>
>
>I am hearing the same things
>from our legislators about license
>fee increases!
>
>But as far as HB112, I
>will push for it only
>to include moose, sheep, goat
>& bison in the next
>session.

If they reintroduce HB122 in a future session to limit NR to 10% of the moose, sheep, goat, and bison are they going to make any changes to the preference point fee/application structure?

Right now it costs a NR $114 to apply for sheep and $89 to apply for moose. Those fees are nonrefundable and include a $100 preference point for sheep and a $75 preference point for moose. There is no way to opt out of the preference point fee if you just want to apply for a random tag for the $14 application fee without acquiring a preference point.

In the sheep forum HornedToad projected that under the propsed 10% NR cap that there would only be 16 NR preference point tags and 2 NR random tags available for sheep. I believe it would be similar with moose.

For all those current NR point holders not in the top point tiers to be in the running for a preference point tag, it would amount to a nonrefundable application of $114 and $89 for sheep and moose respectively since there is currently no way to opt out of what will become a worthless preference point to all those vying for the two tags in the random drawing. Do you think this issue would be addressed by the language in the bill as I could see a huge decrease in NR applicants and the preference point revenue they generate for WY if this was not addressed?

Thanks,

Horniac
 
Apparently you and Buzz's lapdog missed the part where they'll still have a decent percentage of LQ tags going random draw if a PP were implemented?
 
In reading #151, I should guess that you would have no problem applying that advice to yourself?

Why would you be different with regard to that theory?
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-18-14 AT 02:46PM (MST)[p]I guess that L will have to explain this slowly.
I wish that all deer tags in this state were on a limited quota drawing basis, maybe 50 years from now they will be?
But the problem is that I will be dead as a door nail by then.

Wyoming has done their surveys, and there ain't going to be nothing but OTC resident tags in the foreseeable future.
That's just the way it is, if you think the high country areas in regions G and H don't have too much pressure, then that's fine, we all have our opinions.

But I think they do have too much pressure, so I fought as hard as I could to get nonresident tag numbers cut back, just
BECAUSE that's the only option available to alleviate pressure now, and in the foreseeable future.

I have shot 1 deer in the last ten years of hunting Wyoming, how many nonresidents do that? ( hint- probably none) they all have this same story," I saw a couple of big bucks, one was a 190 incher, but they got away so I got this 3 1/2 year old 26 incher towards the end"
Also, in the state of Nevada all ungulate tags are on a limited quota basis, now check out how the 12 to 17 year olds all get deer tags, go ahead, look it up.
This kid whining is bull, I agree with triple BB on the kid thing, they don't need a limited quota bull tag on their first hunt, I didn't grow up that way, my first deer was a doe.
 
We aren't talking about their first hunt. It's down the road for them. A 2 yr old that will hunt in 10 years will be 10 points behind the 8-ball in points is all I am saying. Personally it doesn't matter to me, as I don't have kids. Agreed, NV & even AZ are good to kids. Most states are not. As for G&H, read again, there is WAY too much pressure there & it is mainly from residents. 800 non-resi's were not the only problem (number prior to tag reduction)there. Remember, the whole population of WY can legally hunt there, & a heck of a lot of them do. I am not saying it has to be LQ there either, it was a suggestion. Here's another, why can't we pick a unit there as a provision to the gen tag in that region? At least that would keep the guys that travel a long ways out of unit 135. Because that's where they all end up, down in 135 & take a young deer to bring home after they struck out up the Greys. I see it every year. Hey, I am not here to argue, just to throw out different ideas. In my original post, I did say a point system has merit, depending on the system. But don't BS me & tell me it will not hurt juniors that become adults down the road.
 
>In reading #151, I should guess
>that you would have no
>problem applying that advice to
>yourself?
>

Yep, no problem. However, I'd prefer a waiting period over PP's.

Point is, you lost the argument. Any kid who wants to hunt can hunt and would still be able to hunt...
 
Doesn't this address part of the concern that a youngster won't ever draw a tag? (from the bill).....

The department shall develop a method by which an
applicant may submit an application as part of a party
application with no more than two (2) members of his
immediate family as defined in W.S. 40-14-640(a)(vi) and
the entire party qualifies for the grouping of the
applicant with the most points accumulated.
 
>Apparently you and Buzz's lapdog missed
>the part where they'll still
>have a decent percentage of
>LQ tags going random draw
>if a PP were implemented?
>


***See WB's comment!
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-18-14 AT 06:37PM (MST)[p]Piper:I guess that L will have
>to explain this slowly.
>I wish that all deer tags
>in this state were on
>a limited quota drawing basis,
> maybe 50 years from
>now they will be?
>But the problem is that I
>will be dead as a
>door nail by then.
>
>Wyoming has done their surveys, and
>there ain't going to be
>nothing but OTC resident tags
>in the foreseeable future.
>That's just the way it is,
> if you think the
>high country areas in regions
>G and H don't have
>too much pressure, then that's
>fine, we all have our
>opinions.


>But I think they do have
>too much pressure, so I
>fought as hard as I
>could to get nonresident tag
>numbers cut back, just
>BECAUSE that's the only option available
>to alleviate pressure now, and
>in the foreseeable future.

***Say what? There are a lot of LE draw units for deer besides the general tags the residents can buy if they don't draw or want to hunt a lot of units! What was said was that there are a lot of residents hunting G&H under the General tag to cause the pressure you're talking about. That was great of you to try and cut more NR LQ tags when it's not their fault those Regions may be overhunted. However, it seems the NRs get blamed for all the problems even though they pay close to 80% of YOUR G&F Dept. budget!

>I have shot 1 deer in
>the last ten years of
>hunting Wyoming, how many
>nonresidents do that? ( hint-
>probably none) they all have
>this same story," I saw
>a couple of big bucks,
>one was a 190 incher,
>but they got away so
>I got this 3 1/2
>year old 26 incher towards
>the end"

***Here we go again with blaming the NRs for your deer problems! I guess no residents do what you're blaming NRs for(hint hint)!!!

>Also, in the state of Nevada
>all ungulate tags are on
>a limited quota basis, now
> check out how the
>12 to 17 year olds
>all get deer tags,
>go ahead, look it up.

***Why talk about NV when we're talking about hunting in Wyoming?

>This kid whining is bull,
>I agree with triple BB
>on the kid thing, they
>don't need a limited quota
>bull tag on their first
>hunt, I didn't grow up
>that way, my first deer
>was a doe.

***Poor reading comprehension again there Bro, as nobody said anything about a kid getting a LQ tag for his first hunt! IMHO if any "whining" is going on it sounds like it's you, LOL!
 
Too many residents and nonresidents pound the high country in G and H in my opinion, but the only option to control pressure is cut nonresident tag numbers and shorten the seasons more, that's the way it is Topgun, OTC tags aren't going away for a long time, I don't like it either but it is what it is.
and its worth noting that nonresidents have twice the success rate as residents.

I talk about Nevada to show that there are ways to give youth opportunity in places where limited quotas and point systems are the norm.
I hear the kid opportunity whine lots when people argue against point systems.
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-18-14 AT 07:42PM (MST)[p]>Doesn't this address part of the
>concern that a youngster won't
>ever draw a tag?
>(from the bill).....
>
>The department shall develop a method
>by which an
>applicant may submit an application as
>part of a party
>application with no more than two
>(2) members of his
>immediate family as defined in W.S.
>40-14-640(a)(vi) and
>the entire party qualifies for the
>grouping of the
>applicant with the most points accumulated.
>

Yes it does.

This was changed to read "...part of a party application with up to (2) youth members of his immediate family as defined in W.S. 40-14-640(a)(vi) and the youth applications shall not count towards the party application points total. If successfully drawn on first choice, all points are forfeited including any acquired by youth."

Credit the late Barry Strang for this idea which he presented to a Senator and the G&F. This will help make sure no youth applicants are left behind. This will also , I believe, pertain to non-resident youth which should make a lot of NRs happy!
 
Preference points are a bad idea mainly because they do nothing to change draw odds. We need to find a way to decrease applicants or add tags (add archery tags under the assumption that you can slightly increase the amount of tags sold due to much lower success rates)
Decrease applicants by removing successful sheep applicants from the moose draw.
remove successful sheep/moose applicants from the goat draw.
remove successful sheep/moose/goat applicants from the bison draw.
remove successful sheep/moose/goat/bison applicants from the elk draw.
remove successful sheep/moose/goat/bison/elk applicants from the deer draw.
remove successful sheep/moose/goat/bison/elk/deer applicants from the antelope draw.
deal with any leftover permits on a first come basis after the initial draw (just like is currently done)
Add 3-5year waiting periods for applicants that draw a unit with <25% draw odds, (3year average that way if the odds dip below 25% for one year).

Add a Nevada style squared bonus point system if the above ideas don't significantly increase draw odds.
 
For all those in the know, If they reintroduce HB122 in a future session to limit NR to 10% of the moose, sheep, goat, and bison are they going to make any changes to the preference point fee/application structure?

Right now it costs a NR $114 to apply for sheep and $89 to apply for moose. Those fees are nonrefundable and include a $100 preference point for sheep and a $75 preference point for moose. There is no way to opt out of the preference point fee if you just want to apply for a random tag for the $14 application fee without acquiring a preference point.

In the sheep forum HornedToad projected that under the propsed 10% NR cap that there would only be 16 NR preference point tags and 2 NR random tags available for sheep. I believe it would be similar with moose.

For all those current NR point holders not in the top point tiers to be in the running for a preference point tag, it would amount to a nonrefundable application of $114 and $89 for sheep and moose respectively since there is currently no way to opt out of what will become a worthless preference point to all those vying for the few tags in the random drawing.

Do you think this issue would be addressed by the language in the bill as I could foresee a huge decrease in NR applicants for sheep and moose if this is not addressed? I could see WYG&F potentially losing $1M in NR moose/sheep application fee/preference point revenue due to this issue. Maybe eliminate the requirement to purchase a preference point for those that aren't at the point levels necessary to get into the preference point draw or at least make them cheaper...

Thanks,

Horniac
 
Hard to lose an argument when you aren't arguing. A waiting period would be great.....enact it then.

Wasn't what we were discussing.

Remember this, I haven't been chitty to anyone here, please extend the same courtesy. It's not about winning or losing an internet debate. The more people talk, the more answers might crack through the cobwebs.

And, as much as I hate to admit it, the non-resi's are not the bulk of the problem in G&H. They may have a higher harvest stat per percentage......50% of 800 (old number here)means they shot 400 bucks. But 10% of the 5,000 residents mean 500 bucks were shot. And, I am probably conservative on the resi hunter numbers. Just like anything else, a survey can be slanted to support a theory. Let's deal in facts, please.
 
Said it before and will say it again. PP suck. They are a curse, a trap and can make hunting totally loose it's fun factor. I do not know the hours I have wasted on figuring points, when I might draw just figure that I still have no chance to draw even though I started points when I was in high school.... Again no chance, even with the hybrid draw, I have as much chance as I do winning the lottery.

If you think it is so great, just wait until your 2 to 3 point unit gets pimped by east mans, or the likes and you watch as a once average hunt is touted as a prime hunt and the points needed to draw climb from 2 to 3 to 5 to 8 to ten.

Also points will artificially inflate hunt value. A person with 5 points will decide to burn points on a 3 point unit soon everyone with 5 points will decide the unit is worth 5, if it was worth 5 to others then I should spend 6 just to have a hunt and so on...

Points are a curse that only favors those at the top and puts every other single person below them at a disadvantage. Kids, new hunters, etc.

At the very most a weighted waiting period after drawing a tag. But do not believe that PP is going to make anything better for you.

I have worked on various committees for the last decade with the Colorado Parks and Wildlife. The only issue that has remained the same with out a solution in those entire 10 years is PP creep and the trap that pp have become. People are tired of waiting years to draw tags that were once 30% odds. Trust me a 30% odds unit will quickly become a 7 to 10 point unit. A 50% unit will become a 4 to 5 year wait really fast. And a 100% unit will become either a dumping ground for hutners so the state can make money or it will climb to every 2 years.

It is a trap that sucks....
 
You bring up some good points elks96.
The unit pimping by Hunting Fool and Eastmans destroys odds no matter if there is a point system in place or not, that's a whole other matter, its just the way ethics have gone.

I believe your wrongly blaming point systems for everything,
In Wyoming the 30% draw antelope areas aren't going to change drastically because of a point system.

I personally don't mind a 50%-50% preference system like Utah has, a Arizona system isn't bad either, or a bonus system like Nevada's.
All those systems do ok at addressing the youths and hunters just getting in the draws.
I believe need a waiting period or some type of point system to address the inequality of tag distribution that random luck drawing bring.

I think it sucks how nonresidents get sucked into expensive point systems and then have states dramatically lower odds by cutting tags way back.
Make some calls guys, call the tourism boards, threaten to boycott some Wyoming businesses that take tourism dollars, write some letters, get mad.
I would.
 
>Said it before and will say
>it again. PP suck. They
>are a curse, a trap
>and can make hunting totally
>loose it's fun factor. I
>do not know the hours
>I have wasted on figuring
>points, when I might draw
>just figure that I still
>have no chance to draw
>even though I started points
>when I was in high
>school.... Again no chance, even
>with the hybrid draw, I
>have as much chance as
>I do winning the lottery.
>
>
>If you think it is so
>great, just wait until your
>2 to 3 point unit
>gets pimped by east mans,
>or the likes and you
>watch as a once average
>hunt is touted as a
>prime hunt and the points
>needed to draw climb from
>2 to 3 to 5
>to 8 to ten.
>
>Also points will artificially inflate hunt
>value. A person with 5
>points will decide to burn
>points on a 3 point
>unit soon everyone with 5
>points will decide the unit
>is worth 5, if it
>was worth 5 to others
>then I should spend 6
>just to have a hunt
>and so on...
>
>Points are a curse that only
>favors those at the top
>and puts every other single
>person below them at a
>disadvantage. Kids, new hunters, etc.
>
>
>At the very most a weighted
>waiting period after drawing a
>tag. But do not believe
>that PP is going to
>make anything better for you.
>
>
>I have worked on various committees
>for the last decade with
>the Colorado Parks and Wildlife.
>The only issue that has
>remained the same with out
>a solution in those entire
>10 years is PP creep
>and the trap that pp
>have become. People are tired
>of waiting years to draw
>tags that were once 30%
>odds. Trust me a 30%
>odds unit will quickly become
>a 7 to 10 point
>unit. A 50% unit will
>become a 4 to 5
>year wait really fast. And
>a 100% unit will become
>either a dumping ground for
>hutners so the state can
>make money or it will
>climb to every 2 years.
>
>
>It is a trap that sucks....
>

You absolutely nailed it 96.
I agree 100%.
 
The argument that kids and newbies having to wait for a tag isn't fair is bogus. the guy who's tried for 20 years and paid his dues shouldn't have an advantage? the kid has 50 years to get a tag the veteran applicant might be 60 so his time is limited.

Here is the bottom line some people can't seem to grasp, when you have more hunters than tags someone is going to go without. it's only fair the guy who's gone without the longers get priority. end of story , all your nutshell games don't change the real picture, there aren't enough tags.

I talked to a few outfitter friends and they say the 10% NR cap is a joke the state can't afford it. their contacts say it's going nowhere now or later. they do admit another round if price increases might happen , for just that reason, the state needs the money. so the chances of a revenue reducing plan are very unlikely . just typical politicians pandering to a few loudmouth constituents to make them feel warm and fuzzy about porking the NR.

The fact no finacial or personal damage study has been done on this bill is the reason we're even discussing it. once one has the NR cap portion will be gone and forgotten and a price hike will be all remains.















Stay thirsty my friends
 
440
Don't believe all you hear from Wy ouffiters about how many residents want to change license allocation. The truth is, trying to change elk, deer, and antelope is not going to happen. I don't think many residents would support that either.

However, due the math on moose, sheep, goat and bison and you have a totally different story. I am hearing from more and more residents on this issue and it's not going away. There will be a showdown, sooner or later, between sportsman and outfitters here in Wyoming. Times are changing and outfitters no longer have the clout they enjoyed in the past in Cheyenne.

Eventually, outfitters saying they are Wyoming's ambassadors for the outdoors won't be enough and they will have start contributing their share of money to wildlife management. Right now it's not a single dime...
 
I'm with ya, 440. No one seems to care about the old guy that's been putting in for 20-30 years and never drawn a tag. IMO, he should have a better chance at drawing than a new resident that just moved here and draws his first year. It can be very frustrating and a source of bitter feelings. I'm not saying a PP system is the answer, but the status quo is not working.

I would also submit that a 3-yr waiting period does very little to affect odds in very hard-to-draw units. Frankly, the LQ deer units I'm familiar with are no better than general units anyway as far as age class and antler quality are concerned.

There is something to be said for the NR hunter paying the lion's share of our GFD's revenue. I would also hate to be the guy that's been buying sheep points for 20 yrs only to be knocked back down to waiting a few or several more years for that once in a lifetime opportunity.
 
I would also
>hate to be the guy
>that's been buying sheep points
>for 20 yrs only to
>be knocked back down to
>waiting a few or several
>more years for that once
>in a lifetime opportunity.


nontypical
I'm sure when you say 20 years you are being general. Any NR with 19 pts(max) could have had their moose or sheep tag by now. Many with quite a few less are drawing these days. Jeff
 
by cutting tag numbers in half you can expect to add 10 or more years to the wait time for nonresidents, pretty unfair if you ask me.
This is the stuff that gives point systems a bad rap.
 
+1 piper.
I understand why the resident hunter feels the way they do about the NR tag split but it's the same old thing that we've seen in other States. I've applied for a decade and a half for moose and sheep. I'm closing the gap and getting excited.....and now this split change (potentially/eventually) has my panties in a wad.
I played in good faith and this could be a huge slap in the face.
Piper is correct, it's these kind of changes that divide hunters and gives PP's a bad rap.
By the way, PP's don't cause points creep or ruin the draw odds. It's the shrinking supply vs ever-increasing demand. Points or no points, not everyone will draw every tag that they want. Period!
Zeke
 
My prediction is HB 112 is a done deal next year. I'm entering it on my calendar to see if my prediction is right. Been along time since the masses came alive like they did with hb112. Only place I heard any resident speak negatively of it was on mm. Also there was a homemade sign in support of it at a Evanston sporting good store last weekend.
 
Possibly for moose, sheep, goat, and bison.

NO WAY for elk, deer, and pronghorn.

That type of bill will be easy to kill via the fiscal note...with the GF in the financial trouble they are, the legislature will never pass it.

I dont know what jm77 was hearing with the Reps he was talking to at the Sportsmens Reception, but the ones I talked with were not in support of it.

Precisely why it died this session.
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-20-14 AT 00:38AM (MST)[p]>the last part of
>my post had nothing to
>do with your brilliant tag
>getting strategy, or you at
>all for that matter.

Bad way of disguising it!

>And I disagree with your assessment
>of Arizona, The 20% rule
>did really hurt the nonresidents
>chances of obtaining a premium
>tag, offering them no
>chance to draw unless they
>had maximum points, where the
>residents still have a great
>chance at drawing.

Than we will agree to disagree. I was not thrilled with Arizona basically converting NR bonus tags to preference, but still, the rule did not reduce the % of tags going to NR. I did not look at it selfishly. It did give the NR who waited longest their tag earlier, which was not a bad thing. And the change surely beat the hell out of the gross point devaluing other states did like: OR cutting NR tags in half; Utah converting hundreds of the best tags to auction; Maine selling unlimited moose bonus chances.........all done after guys like me invested for years. I greatly admire Arizona for adamantly slamming the door on the SFW "model" HB2072 & was happy to contribute to that effort for all true sportsmen, not for my own personal benefit. Cuddos AZ! You are my hero!

***********************************
Member RMEF, Pope & Young Club, NRA, UWC & DP Hate Club
 
I can see a chance sheep tags would be cut, what's the point in cutting goat tags what are ther 5 or 6 NR tags? big deal.

The reason the sheep tags may be cut is not all outfitters hunt them, it's a small number of tags so a smaller amount of revenue and they effect the landowner base very little. so divide and screw that's how you win. a tactic I expect from the anti hunter but nothing I respect from my fellow hunter. greed is human nature nevertheless so you're always going to have chit like this to adapt to .



















Stay thirsty my friends
 
If the next bill comes out with elk, deer, and antelope it will die as fast as the first.

With some discussion moose, sheep, goat and bison are on the table. The support I'm hearing from residents is over the top. This may be the first big resident/outfitter showdown since set-aside landowner tags, which were soundly rejected.

On a side note, Mr Buzz and I got to chat a while the other night and I have to say he is starting to grow on me. Seriously, he is very concerned and involved sportsman, and though we don't agree 100% on all issues, I'm glad he contributes to the conversation. Now if I can get him to tone down the replies just a little...

But then again that's Buzz!
 
I agree with jm77 on this one...its going to be an outfitter/resident hunter showdown.

I dont believe that the elk, deer, and pronghorn NR quotas are going to be reduced. I do believe that sheep, moose, goat, and bison will be.

Its going to be a slap in the face to NR's and no doubt extend their drawing times by years. I have a concern that this will once again be another reduction in revenue. I dont believe that many of the NR moose and sheep guys that have less than 14-15 points are going to keep applying...just doesnt make sense to really.

That will greatly reduce the amount of NR PP fees that the GF collects on those species. Maybe the reduced fees collected from the NR sheep and moose tags/preference points could be mitigated by charging residents more for their tags and points???

Oh, and jm77, its tough for me to tone down much of anything when it comes to hunting/conservation issues. I've never been someone that is a afraid of letting my thoughts be known...in person or otherwise.

I wonder how the Senator took my comment "if you support WYSFW you're on a sinking ship"...

Hopefully he was mindful of that comment.
 
If the sheep and moose cap is cut there is no doubt it will have a dramatic effect on the number of applicants paying $75 and $100 a year for worthless points.

Once the 10% goal is met then you can cry for it to be cut to 5%.then they'll pass that shortfall onto the NR in tag fee increases right up until you run most the NR hunters off. that seems like a great idea as long as you don't think about it. residents better learn how to pay thier own way.














Stay thirsty my friends
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-20-14 AT 12:55PM (MST)[p]"I wonder how the Senator took my comment "if you support WYSFW you're on a sinking ship"..."

"Hopefully he was mindful of that comment."


I visualize the movie "Titanic" when the ship turns straight up in the air before it goes down for good and Bob Wharff is hanging onto railing hoping for another commissioner tag life jacket!

And yes Buzz, I think the Senator understood!!
 
>"I wonder how the Senator took
>my comment "if you support
>WYSFW you're on a sinking
>ship"..."
>
>"Hopefully he was mindful of that
>comment."
>
>
>I visualize the movie "Titanic" when
>the ship turns straight up
>in the air before it
>goes down for good and
>Bob Wharff is hanging onto
>railing hoping for another commissioner
>tag life jacket!
>
>And yes Buzz, I think the
>Senator understood!!

***That's funny as heck and I hope Bob is lurking and reads it, LOL!
 
>
>
>
>
>
>
>If the sheep and moose cap
>is cut there is no
>doubt it will have a
>dramatic effect on the number
>of applicants paying $75 and
>$100 a year for worthless
>points.
>
>Once the 10% goal is met
>then you can cry for
>it to be cut to
>5%.then they'll pass that shortfall
>onto the NR in tag
>fee increases right up until
>you run most the NR
>hunters off. that seems like
>a great idea as long
>as you don't think about
>it. residents better learn how
>to pay thier own way.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Stay thirsty my friends


I did a rough calc on the loss of revenue to WYG&F if the moose and sheep quotas go to 10%. I estimate 5000 less NR applicants at $203 ($114 sheep + $89 moose) = a staggering $1,015,000 loss of revenue.

Not many NR's are going to spend that type of money on a worthless preference point once they figure out they have no chance at ever drawing a preference tag in their lifetime and only get lottery type odds on a random tag. Oh sure, there will be a few that have the disposable income that will still be able to play the game, but in my opinion it is going to be a dramatic reduction.

If this passes, WYG&F would be wise to reduce the cost of the preference point or let the NR's opt out of having to buy the preference point and just let them apply in the NR random drawing for the $14, or at a new but reasonable application fee.

Seems like that projected reduction in revenue would require a substantial increase to resident application, tag, and peference point fees to offset this revenue loss. From what I have been reading WYG&F is on the financial ropes as it is and this would certainly add to their financial woes to the detriment of the department and the wildlife they manage...

Horniac
 
Another BS deal with this is those of us with higher points will get our wait time doubled. I am 51 sitting on 14 points and was hoping to draw before I am 60. If something like this goes through I will be more like 70 before I draw. Most likely will not be able to hunt sheep then. At least if i could pass the points to one of my children all would not be lost. Alot of people have invested alot of money in points at the chance to draw a hunt. Reducing tags accross the board due to decline in aminals is one thing, but to screw people because the do not live in that particular state is wrong.

Bill
 
>Another BS deal with this is
>those of us with higher
>points will get our wait
>time doubled. I am
>51 sitting on 14 points
>and was hoping to draw
>before I am 60.
>If something like this goes
>through I will be more
>like 70 before I draw.
>Most likely will not be
>able to hunt sheep then.
> At least if i
>could pass the points to
>one of my children all
>would not be lost.
> Alot of people have
>invested alot of money in
>points at the chance to
>draw a hunt. Reducing
>tags accross the board due
>to decline in aminals is
>one thing, but to screw
>people because the do not
>live in that particular state
>is wrong.
>
>Bill


There are NRs drawing sheep tags with 14 points. Go sheep hunting!
 
"Yes, go sheep hunting!"
The annomoly of exactly 1 tag was drawn by a points holder who would be 14 this year!
Not exactly a tag rich draw unless an applicant has a couple more points than that!
I would have been 70+/- years old by the time I would have drawn. Now I'm looking at 80 if this passes next year!
I'd better keep myself in great shape.
Zeke
 
>"Yes, go sheep hunting!"
>The annomoly of exactly 1 tag
>was drawn by a points
>holder who would be 14
>this year!
>Not exactly a tag rich draw
>unless an applicant has a
>couple more points than that!
>
>I would have been 70+/- years
>old by the time I
>would have drawn. Now I'm
>looking at 80 if this
>passes next year!
>I'd better keep myself in great
>shape.
>Zeke


And how old will a 51 yr old be, who has 14 points in 2014 when they draw?
 
I am really concerned as to what top old puss has to say about this issue ...since he has had plans to become a wyo resident for the last 30 years....but has yet to make the move....haha
 
>>"Yes, go sheep hunting!"
>>The annomoly of exactly 1 tag
>>was drawn by a points
>>holder who would be 14
>>this year!
>>Not exactly a tag rich draw
>>unless an applicant has a
>>couple more points than that!
>>
>>I would have been 70+/- years
>>old by the time I
>>would have drawn. Now I'm
>>looking at 80 if this
>>passes next year!
>>I'd better keep myself in great
>>shape.
>>Zeke
>
>
>And how old will a 51
>yr old be, who has
>14 points in 2014 when
>they draw?

Under the existing 20% cap, those NR applicants currently with 14 points still have a projected 10 years left before they will draw according to HornedToad who has been keeping track of this for yesrs...

http://www.monstermuleys.info/dcforum/DCForumID8/5430.html

I haven't seen his projections for what it will do under the proposed 10% cap, but simple math dictates that it will at least double the current wait...

Horniac
 
LIK2HNT

As a resident of WY I would agree you're getting screwed when it comes to the price you have to pay for a tag and the BS requirement of an outfitter and I'm really not that concerned that nonresidents get a larger share of our sheep than in any other western state.

You said you shouldn't be screwed just because you live in another state. Well, do you believe in states rights? Do you think it's fair to residents that a nonresident's sheep draw odds are slightly better than that of residents or are we the ones currently getting screwed by you?

The power of the WYOGA and the loss of private land access is directly attributed to nonresidents.

I'm just saying be a little more thoughtful in your remarks. I find them to be very offensive.

I agree with JM77, go shoot your damn sheep!
 
>
>I agree with JM77, go shoot
>your damn sheep!


That seems to be the theme around here.
Only problem is we need a permit FIRST!
How many NR tags will be drawn with 14 points this year?
Let me help you out with reality; zero, maybe 1.
So "go shoot your damn sheep" huh?
Those of us stuck in the <14 points pools will be waiting +/-20 years on the average when tags get slashed by 50%.
Not bad unless you're older than 50...which I am, by a decade!
God help us all,
Zeke
 
Zeke,
Feel sorry for you. You are in a worse point/age dilemma then me. The other problem with the hunt sheep now attitude is that a lot of the people who have over 14 points and were putting in for other units that they were 2 to 3 points behind in drawing may now jump into the easier to draw units. They may opt to get a tag and quit the game. Making that one possible tag nonexistent for our point tier for quit a few more years.

Blueticker
I feel the wilderness rule is BS but it was my choice then to buy points. Same thing with the tag prices. I know NR get hosed but when I started this I thought I would draw before tags got out of my financial reach. Changing the game when a lot of people are invested and can not back out without losing a lot of time and money is where NRs are getting screwed. Either by raising point cost, making them purchase a license, or drastically cutting tag allocations is unfair. I know it may not be a lot of money to the high roller of the hunting world, but for a DIY hunter I find this getting a little to rich for my blood. And I know there is a lot of people finding it harder to make ends meet than me. The example previously made by someone about New Mexico does not hold water. New Mexico made it not worth applying to for a lot of NR's, but they did not take a bunch of NR funds first.

And Blueticker, I see your point about draw odds between Res. & NR (something I did not know until I just looked up some of the units) yet I do not have any answers. Has this trend recently started or has it been like this from the start?

Lets just hope our great government does not decide to take this into their own hands and make all hunting on federal lands go through them. If this ever happens all our problems will be solved for us. Only the ultra rich will be able to afford it. And maybe tristate.
Bill
 
Zeke

Last year 10% of the nonrez tags went to guys with 14 points (6/54) in the point draw, maybe another in one of the 8 random draw tags. Draw odds were 100% in areas 1 and 10, 67% in area 8 with 14 points.

Guess what, I also have 14 points, am in my 50's and have worse draw odds than nonresidents but I'm not on here promoting that WY should reduce nonrez tag percentages so that I have better odds. It is what it is... deal with it. You should have started applying from the beginning and you would already have your sheep hunt behind you.

LIKE2HNT

Wyoming is not a trophy state when it comes to sheep. We're nothing like Montana when it comes to ram size. My advice is to do some research, find an area you can draw with a reputable outfitter and go sheep hunting before you get old. Any mature ram is a trophy in WY.

If my dad can draw his moose tag this year we'll go hunting in an area I chose because it's geriatric friendly not for its trophy potential. He'll be eighty.

Good luck.
 
>Zeke
>
>Last year 10% of the nonrez
>tags went to guys with
>14 points (6/54) in the
>point draw, maybe another in
>one of the 8 random
>draw tags. Draw odds were
>100% in areas 1 and
>10, 67% in area 8
>with 14 points.
>
>Guess what, I also have 14
>points, am in my 50's
>and have worse draw odds
>than nonresidents but I'm not
>on here promoting that WY
>should reduce nonrez tag percentages
>so that I have better
>odds. It is what it
>is... deal with it. You
>should have started applying from
>the beginning and you would
>already have your sheep hunt
>behind you.
>
>LIKE2HNT
>
>Wyoming is not a trophy state
>when it comes to sheep.
>We're nothing like Montana when
>it comes to ram size.
>My advice is to do
>some research, find an area
>you can draw with a
>reputable outfitter and go sheep
>hunting before you get old.
>Any mature ram is a
>trophy in WY.
>
>If my dad can draw his
>moose tag this year we'll
>go hunting in an area
>I chose because it's geriatric
>friendly not for its trophy
>potential. He'll be eighty.
>
>Good luck.
>


I hear ya blueticker,
I'll deal with whatever comes.
Just a couple more words:
I've made application every year since the advent of random tags. That puts me at 14 this year. Those who drew last year are a point ahead (my fault, not yours). They will be 15 this year, not 14.
If I had to place money on it, I'd bet that exactly ZERO 14 points holders draw sheep tags this year. Those are just the facts.
I'll be one of those OLDer dudes when it's finally my turn.
Thanks for the reply Mr Blueticker.
Zeke
 

Similar threads

C
WY adopting Idaho model for Big 4? Must choose ONE species! TRW committee working group 5/14/24
Replies
26
Views
1k
Bookhead
Bookhead

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

18BAE358-F163-46D6-9B9C-FA2B43E4FB44.jpeg
20210713_121118.jpg
20200913_140013.jpg
IMG_4556.jpeg
3D382FC9-4172-4118-A1C6-B09D6BCB81BA.jpeg
5B8BD0BA-C333-4BDE-B6ED-DB2C565E1A70.jpeg
fb3-2-17.JPG
Screenshot_20221031_235809.jpg
ERiLr+pARlGn93Z+te+woQ_thumb_693f-DeNoiseAI-standard.jpg
Idaho 2022!!!
IMG_4493.jpg
6 pt bull 7-21 #2.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