Proposed WY License Fee Increases

S

SMOKESTICK

Active Member
Messages
852
This might be the last time you can comment on the Proposed Wyoming G&F License Fee Increases. This Friday, in Lander, WY the Joint Travel, Recreation, Wildlife and Cultural Resources Committee will be taking public comments pertaining to this action. The following link is for an article which was recently published in the Casper Star Tribune:
http://trib.com/lifestyles/recreati...557a-89f1-a4484e6ad0a5.html?comment_form=true
You might want to take a few minutes to express your thoughts, comments, etc. as the G&F Department is stating that most everyone supports these increases. That is not what I have heard nor what I continue to hear. Might be worth your time to submit comments as it appears that only WY SFW is offering any resistance to this proposal.
For the record, WY SFW might support a license fee increase later; however, we believe more should be done to address additional cost cutting measures and improve efficiencies where applicable before a license increase is awarded.
 
Well, my fmaily had just decided that Antelope hunting was sounding pretty good... But with tag price increases, we won't be doing it. Same with deer. We were getting excited to start hunting for deer in 2 states, but if fees go up, we won't be going.

"Therefore, wo be unto him that is at ease in Zion!" 2 Ne. 28: 24
 
The G&F is blowing smoke if they say people support the proposed increases. I talked to a lot of people during the 8 weeks I was out there hunting elk, deer, and antelope and just got back today. Not a single NR I talked to is in favor of the huge increases and almost all of the residents I talked to also thought the proposed increases, especially $520 for a deer tag, are ridiculous. Most are afraid that if the increases go through that many NRs will not be back and that will really affect the economy in a lot of the small towns that rely on the hutning seasons to survive.
 
the increases will go through. while deer hunting last week i ran into 2 game wardens. they checked my tag and stamp. so we started talking. the game wardens said that the game and fish is broke. they have about 3 months of money left...

they stated tags have not gone up in 8 years, so my question was how come my general elk tag goes up every year then?

we had a nice chit chat, very nice guys to talk to as we went on talking hunting........
 
Actually tag fees increased in 2008 only 4 years ago.


Romans 10:13
THE LORD IS MY ROCK
NRA LIFE MEMBER
marines.jpg

fox14.gif
 
No doubt in my mind they are going to do it. My doubt is if it will actually bring in more money. Buying a nonresident license is opting for a discressitional tax. Many will opt out in today's economy as the price is already at the limit of what most feel it is worth. Nonresidents curently pay the biggest chunk of the WYGFD budget.
 
I for one probably won't be able to go because the prices for fuel food etc. have risen to high. I've been going to Wy. For over ten years. It used to cost me about $500.00 to $700.00 for the whole trip. I didn't go this year because the price has risen to $1000.00 plus. Just can't afford it. If they raise the tag prices to over $500.00 it will keep lots of nonresident hunter out of the game. Sad. Why is it all we see in this country are higher prices, access for outdoor recreation being limited and gun rights being attacked. I realize it's still the best place to live, but it would sure be refreshing to hear, " Hey the government just opened up more areas for outdoor activities". Be it parks or areas around wilderness for snowmobiling or ...fill in the blank.
 
"Why is it all we see in this country are higher prices, access for outdoor recreation being limited"

Look at what is happening with all the tag auctions (the quantity) and that will tell you where a lot of the opportunities are being limited...
 
Wyoming Big Game license fee increase


The Wyoming G&F is currently looking for ways to increase revenue to the department. The primary result will be an increase in resident and nonresident license fees. This is a proposal that would let base license fees remain at or near current pricing and still achieve a substantial revenue increase to the department.

You may or may not know that the way the department structures its license drawing system presently. This quote is from the Wyoming state legislature website re license draw procedure.
? ITD?s mainframe computer has an internal random number generator. This copyrighted generator creates a nine-digit random number for each applicant included in a particular draw. Each random number is between 0 and 1 (i.e. 0.362598731), and each number assigned has an equal chance of occurring. The computer assigns the random numbers immediately prior to conducting a draw.
The computer sorts the random numbers from lowest to highest for the applicants queried. The computer then selects the application with the lowest random number and reviews an applicant's first choice for area and type. It assigns the license if sufficient quota is available for the desired area. Antelope, deer, and elk applicants are allowed to enter up to five choices on an application, in case licenses in some areas and types have already been awarded. Beginning in 1998, these applicants will only have three choices, while moose applicants will have two.
The computer initially processes all first choices on all applications. If an area and type is full, and an applicant's first choice cannot be fulfilled, that application is suspended in a temporary file until the computer has reviewed and assigned licenses to all available first choices. The computer retrieves the applications held in the temporary file and goes through the same process, using the application?s same random number, for second, third, fourth, and fifth queries.? This selection method often makes your second choice option superfluous. Since all first choices are processed first leaving GEN license, sub par, doe fawn, or cow calf permits as the only possible draws for second choice.
The "Fair License Fee Proposal"
It suggests rather than raise license fees, the Wyoming G&F ammend the verbage of the ?Computerized Draw Process? paragraph 4 by deleting first choices on all applications. If an area and type is full, and an applicant's first choice cannot be fulfilled, that application is suspended in a temporary file until the computer has reviewed and assigned licenses to all available first choices. The computer retrieves the applications held in the temporary file and goes through the same process, using the application?s same random number, for second, third, fourth, and fifth queries.? and replacing with ?The computer initially processes all choices on all applications. ? If your application is drawn your first choice, second choice, and third choice are considered before your license is suspended or considered unsuccessful. This proposal would apply to deer, antelope, and elk applications only.
The revenue increase portion of this plan comes in the form of an additional application charge for each of the second and third choice options. A person applying for only a first choice would see no increase in license costs. Applicants opting for additional choices would pay an additional fee for each additional choice but would genuinely have a chance at that tag, as is generally not the case presently.
The big plus is an applicant could apply for those highly coveted tags without hurting your chances of drawing your regular first choice option.
If you agree that the "Fair License Fee Proposal" is a viable alternative to substantial license fee increases please share this page with others. Print it and contact Wyoming Game and Fish and let your feelings be known.


CONTACT LIST

HD 60 Representative John Freeman 2340 North Carolina Way Green River WY 82935 (307) 875-7378 [email protected]
HD 20 Representative Kathy Davison P.O. Box 602 Kemmerer WY 83101 (307) 877-6483 [email protected]
HD 36 Representative Gerald Gay 364 South Socony Place Casper WY 82609 (307) 265-5187 [email protected]
HD 18 Representative Allen Jaggi P.O. Box 326 Lyman WY 82937 (307) 786-2817 [email protected]
HD 24 Representative Samuel Krone P.O. Box 2481 Cody WY 82414 (307) 587-4530 (307) 272-0082 [email protected]
SD 21 Senator Bruce Burns P.O. Box 6027 Sheridan WY 82801 (307) 672-6491 [email protected]
SD 17 Senator Leland Christensen 220 West Alta Alta WY 83414 (307) 353-8204 [email protected]
SD 16 Senator Dan Dockstader P.O. Box 129 Afton WY 83110 (307) 885-9705 [email protected]
SD 01 Senator Ogden Driskill P.O. Box 155 Devils Tower WY 82714 (307) 680-5555 [email protected]
SD 08 Senator Floyd Esquibel 1222 West 31st St Cheyenne WY 82001 (307) 638-6529 [email protected]

Wyoming Game and Fish 307-777-4600
 
Sorry, but I would have to disagree that the proposal would bring in anywhere near the money that the fee increases they are proposing would. This proposal assumes a lot of people would put in for second and third choice. If they don't, then the money they need won't be there. They need a concrete way to get the money and charging the way they do now is the only way to insure that. They are already taking a gamble that the proposed increases will more than ofset the number of people who will quit applying. THis would be a huge gamble that I don't believe they would ever risk taking.
 
I think yer fair fee process stinks. People should be paying more for first choice tags, not left over crap tags. I just want the opportunity to go hunting every year. So I'll apply for a second choice tag just to get out in the sticks. If I have to pay a bunch more for a left over 2nd or 3rd choice tag, forget it...
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-19-12 AT 10:24PM (MST)[p]Wouldn't this approach make the odds worse for the better max point units?
 
Interesting that the Legislative explanation is in stark contrast to the way the draw happens according to the head of the draw dept.
Specifically, the dept head to me that WY is not a lowest number draw.
 
I might be wrong, but this suggestion sounds like it would be the way NM does their draw where a person is given a random number. Then if your number is picked by the computer it goes through and gives you your #1 choice if there are any tags left, then #2, etc. Wyoming starts by looking at the number of PPs a person has and then selects at random from those who have the most PPs on down through until the first choices for a Region or unit are filled. Only then does it look to see what people's second choices are if tags are left, and so on. In the random draw where people have no PPs it is more like NM where they pick by a random number assigned to you, but then it goes through the process just like the PP drawings and not like NM stays with that one number for their other two choices before moving on to the next applicanr. I was trying to be polite in my first post, but I have to agree with others who have posted and say I think the idea sucks.
 
Wyoming does not consider your second choice until all first choice applicants have been processed. Thus leaving only the left over poor areas as a second choice possibility. Read the description I posted it is a direct qoute from the wyoming statute on how the draw selection is conducted. If you would like a genuine chance for your second choice this is a great plan. Better read the current drawing proceedure plan again. It is a common misconception that your second choice is considered on the first draw of your application. Those opting to not put in a second choice would see no fee increase.
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-20-12 AT 09:37AM (MST)[p]Where do you get its a misconception about your second choice not being considered unless its undersubscribed? I've known that ever since I started applying in Wyoming. Same deal in Montana.

Nobody should draw a second choice tag that someone else wants as their first choice.

If you want to increase the drawing fee...do it. But, leave the process in place that we already have.

Dumbest idea I've heard of to raise revenue...and thats saying something as dumb ideas arent in short supply on how to deal with the current G&F shortfall.

BTW, are you affiliated with WYSFW? Sure sounds like a "brain storming" session that they'd come up with.
 
>I agree with Triple_BB...dumb idea.


How can you then agree with triple_BB. He obviously does not understand the second choice under this plan would not just be the "left over crap"
 
Not affiliated with any organization but I believe if I am lucky enough to be assigned a low number all my choices should be considered before my application is suapended
 
Calling your idea a "plan" is stretching.

All you're doing is complicating something that currently isnt. I've never understood the need to make easy chit difficult.

Like I already said, if you want to increase revenue via the draw, do it by raising the intial drawing fee.

Simple, easy, and no need to come up with a new drawing protocal.

Plus, you arent thinking about the impacts considering 2-3 choices will have on those that have waited a long time to draw a specific area. You'll be tacking on several years for people who are denied because someone else drew their first choice tag, on a second choice.

Its a ridiculous idea with no thought given to the long-time applicants that want the best chance possible at their first choice areas.

A joke...and a dumb idea.
 
Depends no when your number come up. This proposal paralells current system odds after 10,000 applicants. People drawn under 10,000 hav a sustauially better shot of drawing
 
Your application isnt "suspended" if you know how to choose a second choice area correctly.

Its pretty frickin' easy to read the demand index and apply some common sense to your second and third choices.

Just sayin'...
 
your example of the long time applicant trying for one area is correct. But those folks are not the majority of applicants by any means. And sometimes the majority benefiting means the minority does not.
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-20-12 AT 10:27AM (MST)[p]What?

How are the sporstsmen that are applying for, and seeking their first choice, not the "majority by any means"???

Seems to me, they've been the majority, doing just that, since day one.

I dont know a single sportsmen that applies for a first choice that doesnt want their first choice.

Is there anything "wrong" with leaving the draw as is, and just tacking on an additional, non-refundable drawing fee to raise revenue?

Thats what I thought...

I'm sick of the tag vultures wanting to change the system to suit them by disquising it as a way to increase revenue.

BTW, I sent my letter...
 
If you read all the posts from Nov. people are bitching about any increase. This proposal gives you an option to apply with no increase whatsoever. But if you want to increase your chances buy a second choice option
 
What is there to read?

Its simple, dont bother to put down a second choice unless the area you're applying for is undersubscribed by first choice applicants.

I've drawn plenty of good tags on second choices...mainly because I dont see third grade math as a challenge and can read the demand index.

Too complicated for some it would appear.
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-20-12 AT 10:46AM (MST)[p]I dont think most would complain about tacking on an extra lincoln to their application fees. They're bitching about very signficant increases in licene fees...not application fees.

Best way to corrupt a drawing process is to change one...and thats a fact.

Theres already a process that splits NR applications for those willing to pay more...special VS regular fees.

I see no reason to create another process that once again favors one hunter over another.
 
An "extra lincoln" wont come close do your homework it's more like an extra $120. on regular and $270.00 on special. Thats the reality.
 
Well, don't know if this is legit or not, but went ahead and sent a couple emails saying if this process is being considered as a way to increase revenues, I think its a stupid idea...
 
This proposal prices your second choice at around $50.00. And has no financial impact to the Dept. if they need to vut licenses for the welfare of the herd.
 
What?

An extra lincoln on ALL applications wont make money...but having an unknown number of applicants paying $50 for their second choice to be considered will raise more? Really...fascinating.

You're basing your dollar amount raised via your plan on what percentage of applicants playing your ponzi scheme?

I can see why some find the demand index a challenge...good grief.
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-20-12 AT 11:13AM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Dec-20-12 AT 11:10?AM (MST)

You've already been told why and you have no answers.

I wonder if this would benefit an outfitter that has clients applying for multiple units that have tougher draw odds???
 
This proposal allows your second choice to count and not just for "left over crap"
 
It would benefit anyone "applying for multiple units that have tougher drawing odds"
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-20-12 AT 11:18AM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Dec-20-12 AT 11:18?AM (MST)

With any proposal...follow who stands to benefit the most for your answers.

It wont benefit those that have waited 7+ years to draw their first choice tags, when some clown with less points snaps up their tag via your "plan" on a second choice.
 
pref point tags are allocated to pref point draw only then pref point applicants drop to regular draw pool retaining their points. Thus you could apply with points and still have a chance at a better license without loosing you points.
 
Which would in turn, further jam up the preference points pools and cheapen the value of acquired points since those that drew their second choice wouldnt lose their points.


Just keeps getting better and better...
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-20-12 AT 11:50AM (MST)[p]I see the rational behind the proposal. Pay more to have them look at your other choices first. Problem is, in NM, where they look at all 3, some like it, some don't. Paying for that opportunity creates another financial roadblock for a percentage of the applying public. If the applicants are caomplaining because of high cost and you add a way to "pay" for better odds, you're alienation people and creating animosity between applicants. Another "pay to play" scenario that seems to be spreading across the states.

Regarding the draw process, the head of the WY Game draw dept told me specifically that WY is NOT a lowest number draw process and we spoke at length about it. So, either the guy writing the Legislative description is off or the draw dept head doesn't know how his draw process works.

In a nutshell, WY loads the computer with the applicants random numbers for the max pool only, then randomly picks from that pool of numbers, one at a time till the tags are gone, or the max pool applicants are gone. I was told they do that to create a truly random selection process between the applicants within the respective point pools. I was also told they provide a 2nd random number to each applicant that is used only in the "random draw", to ensure the point ranking that accompanies your 1st random number can't be used to influence a 2nd or 3rd choice.
 
>Nope points only count on first
>choice do your home work
>

not under your proposal. You're already ranked when they look at your 1st choice, and would be still if they then looked at your 2nd and 3rd choices.
 
WB---What you mentioned is exactly how Wyoming has done their draw since the PP system started for NRs 6 or 7 years ago. This scheme of his is based on the way NM does their draw to a large extent, but he is now adding money to the scheme, where NM does it under one fee. It sort of sounds like something SFW would come up with to shaft the average guy even more. As BuzzH stated, tampering with the draw system itself is a BAD idea and can only screw things up for people counting on the system staying as it has from it's inception. To do anything else other than to raise specific fees like they are proposing, including the application fee, would be stupid.
 
You are correct but your second choice is not considered until all first choice applicants have been processed. Look we are looking at a rate increase anyway you cut the pie. This just give you something for your money
 
2nd and third choices are not considered in pref point draw in either process they drop to random draw
 
Personally, I like the NM system of all 3 choices, but I don't pay extra. Coupled with the AZ, OR, and WY systems, there are a variety of schemes at play and each has their good and bad points. Applying in all those states provides for a variety of strategies and makes it interesting.

Paying for increased odds is nothing more than a shoe to the nutz of those that struggle to apply their families. If you have the money, buy a LO tag in NM and leave the WY system alone.
 
It's goin up 40% to residents and non residents unless a better plan is instatuted
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-20-12 AT 12:47PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Dec-20-12 AT 12:38?PM (MST)

Judas Jenny man, we are getting something for our money now! All you have to do is look at the draw odds and apply properly to have a decent chance at getting a good tag as a second choice, as well as not burning your PPs, without spending any more money the way it is now. You're talking about scraping an entire system as it exists, which would be expensive and really screw things up bad for all those that have been in the game for a number of years! The plan simply sucks and should never have even been brought up due to all the negative ramifications we have mentioned that it would present.

WB---I don't have a problem with the way NM does their draw, and we got our second choice on deer as a party there 2 years ago. The bad thing about this plan is that it changes the entire system, which is never good for the people who have been in it since it started. Therefore, the post he made about "since it's inception", is weak to say the least.

BuzzH stated: "I dont know a single sportsmen that applies for a first choice that doesnt want their first choice."

The one time I think that this comment would not be true is when a guy has PPs and wants to keep them by applying for a first choice that he knows he can't draw based on previous odds and then puts a second choice down he knows he can get a tag for base on the odds chart. Good tags can be drawn that way that would not be available as leftovers while not burning your PPs. It takes some studying of the way things are done, looking at the odds charts, etc., and knowing how each state system works.
 
Your explanations and the proposal seem to be two different things.

"...and replacing with ?The computer initially processes all choices on all applications. ? If your application is drawn your first choice, second choice, and third choice are considered before your license is suspended or considered unsuccessful. This proposal would apply to deer, antelope, and elk applications only."

Are you saying the PP draw remains as it is, 1st choice only, with the random draw following the 1-3 choices before moving on to the next app?
 
yes and the pref pt applicants opting for a second choice would be competing in the random draw pool
 
If that explanation is the case, the concept might work without drastically changing the system as we know it. However, I still would find it hard to believe that the change could remotely bring in the cash that the G&F needs to stay afloat and operate effectively.
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-20-12 AT 01:01PM (MST)[p]The "Fair License Fee Proposal"
It suggests rather than raise license fees, the Wyoming G&F ammend the verbage of the ?Computerized Draw Process? paragraph 4 by deleting first choices on all applications. If an area and type is full, and an applicant's first choice cannot be fulfilled, that application is suspended in a temporary file until the computer has reviewed and assigned licenses to all available first choices. The computer retrieves the applications held in the temporary file and goes through the same process, using the application?s same random number, for second, third, fourth, and fifth queries.? and replacing with ?The computer initially processes all choices on all applications. ? If your application is drawn your first choice, second choice, and third choice are considered before your license is suspended or considered unsuccessful. This proposal would apply to deer, antelope, and elk applications only.
The revenue increase portion of this plan comes in the form of an additional application charge for each of the second and third choice options. A person applying for only a first choice would see no increase in license costs. Applicants opting for additional choices would pay an additional fee for each additional choice but would genuinely have a chance at that tag, as is generally not the case presently.
The big plus is an applicant could apply for those highly coveted tags without hurting your chances of drawing your regular first choice option.

I dont see that in your proposal. It doesnt state that the second choices only apply to the random pool, but rather, "This proposal would apply to deer, antelope, and elk applications only.

Pretty slick that you're changing and/or making up the "rules" as you go along.

This thing is a joke...and unless it clearly states, which it doesnt, that it WONT apply to preference draws...it certainly will.

Poorly thought out idea from stem to stern.

If a NR hunter chooses to enter a 2nd and 3rd choice their points should be gone if successful on ANY choice.
 
BuzzH---I agreed with you 100% until I got to your last sentence regarding NRs losing their PPs on all choices, rather than the way it is now on just a first choice. Could you explain your reasoning on that please? Thanks, and again I'd like to congratulate you on that great O-I-L Desert Ram you got. He sure is a beauty and I'd love to have been along on that hunt to help you scour that country for him!
 
This is a work in progress. It needs refinement. But the basic premiss is sound. perhaps and addition re pref point draw should read like this Applicants in the preference point draw would be processed in the same manner but would use their preference points if successful in their 2nd or 3rd choice options within their preference point rankings. This would also help break the log jam in the current preference point system. Preference point applicants wishing to retain their preference points if unsuccessful in their first choice option would simply not chose to apply for a second or third choice option.
 
I not changing or making up any rules just trying to formulate agood solution to a difficult budget problem
 
If the proposal of considering 2nd and 3rd choices before someone elses first choice is considered,...you damn right you should lose your points.

Why shouldnt they, they'd be drawing tags that others would gladly draw on their first choice.

Example:

Say 2 people with max points apply for 3 red desert units for antelope...58, 61, and 62...in that order.

Say guy #1 lucks out and draws 61 on a second choice...they get a tag and lose no points.

That same year, guy #2 also draws unit 61 as a first choice, but loses all his points.

The next year guy #1 is still in the running for all the best units in the max point pool, while guy #2 has lost all his points and is 7 years behind guy #1.

Guy #1 gets 2 quality tags, while guy #1 is picking chit with the chickens.

If they're going to allow 2nd and 3rd choices to be considered before someone elses 1st choice...then they better lose their points when they draw.

This whole proposed system is going to create a chitstorm between hunters and its loading the deck for some, while cheating others.

Plus, there is nothing that says the same things wont happen in the preference pools, even though we're being "assured" thats not the case.

Yeah, where have I heard that before.
 
You just did...your first draft is a pile of vague and obtuse chit lacking details that are pretty darn important. Read it, whats not there is often more important than what IS there. If you're expecting those people listed on your contacts to just read between the lines, I'd suggest you're living in fantasyland.

Maybe draft something thats been thought out for more than 2 seconds, clearly states the proposal, addresses some of the concerns brought up, and people might consider it. I might even consider it.

As its written now...I wouldnt give a bucket of mule pi$$ for it.

Just sayin'...
 
Open to real constructive suggestions. Anyone can sling mud tell me what it needs to say
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-20-12 AT 02:38PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Dec-20-12 AT 02:36?PM (MST)

I've always been a fan of starting at the start.

I'd first figure out for SURE how the draw is conducted currently, and how the draw WOULD be conducted with your new proposal.

I'd make it very clear whether this new idea would impact both R's and NR's.

Are we going to consider only 2 choices? 3? 5?

I'd make it clear how much the application fee would increase for considering your second, third, etc. choices. Are we charging $50 for the second choice consideration, another $50 for third choice consideration? Will consideration for additional choices be more in the Special than Regular draw?

Is this going to apply for just the Preference point draw? Just in the special draw? Random? Both? all?

Will a second choice draw mean you keep your points or lose them? Only lose them in the preference draw? Lose them in both? Lose them in neither?

How much will this new program cost the G&F?

What the expected rate of return?

Trust me, you need to figure this out long before you look for support from hunters. It needs to be idiot proof for the legislature, you cant expect them to "do the right thing" based on what you provided. You cant leave them wiggle room to fill in the gaps. If you do, you're likely to be stuck with a big pile of chit that wasnt even what you proposed or wanted.

I do appreciate that you've suggested something other than raising actual license fees. But when things like this are proposed without clear and concise verbage...you're headed for a disaster.
 
Looking for suggestions to improve this proposal with out changing its bascic premise. Any and all constructive suggestions would be welcome. If disagree with the whole thing thats fine but if you see the merit and think it needs more detail then lets hear it. After all its a forum not a shooting gallery. Wyoming Big Game license fee increase


The Wyoming G&F is currently looking for ways to increase revenue to the department. The primary result will be an increase in resident and nonresident license fees. This is a proposal that would let base license fees remain at or near current pricing and still achieve a substantial revenue increase to the department.

You may or may not know that the way the department structures its license drawing system presently. This quote is from the Wyoming state legislature website re license draw procedure.
? ITD?s mainframe computer has an internal random number generator. This copyrighted generator creates a nine-digit random number for each applicant included in a particular draw. Each random number is between 0 and 1 (i.e. 0.362598731), and each number assigned has an equal chance of occurring. The computer assigns the random numbers immediately prior to conducting a draw.
The computer sorts the random numbers from lowest to highest for the applicants queried. The computer then selects the application with the lowest random number and reviews an applicant's first choice for area and type. It assigns the license if sufficient quota is available for the desired area. Antelope, deer, and elk applicants are allowed to enter up to five choices on an application, in case licenses in some areas and types have already been awarded. Beginning in 1998, these applicants will only have three choices, while moose applicants will have two.
The computer initially processes all first choices on all applications. If an area and type is full, and an applicant's first choice cannot be fulfilled, that application is suspended in a temporary file until the computer has reviewed and assigned licenses to all available first choices. The computer retrieves the applications held in the temporary file and goes through the same process, using the application?s same random number, for second, third, fourth, and fifth queries.? This selection method often makes your second choice option superfluous. Since all first choices are processed first leaving GEN license, sub par, doe fawn, or cow calf permits as the only possible draws for second choice.
The "Fair License Fee Proposal"
It suggests rather than raise license fees, the Wyoming G&F ammend the verbage of the ?Computerized Draw Process? paragraph 4 by deleting first choices on all applications. If an area and type is full, and an applicant's first choice cannot be fulfilled, that application is suspended in a temporary file until the computer has reviewed and assigned licenses to all available first choices. The computer retrieves the applications held in the temporary file and goes through the same process, using the application?s same random number, for second, third, fourth, and fifth queries.? and replacing with ?The computer initially processes all choices on all applications. ? If your application is drawn your first choice, second choice, and third choice are considered before your license is suspended or considered unsuccessful. This proposal would apply to deer, antelope, and elk applications only. Applicants in the preference point draw would be processed in the same manner but would use their preference points if successful in their 2nd or 3rd choice options within their preference point rankings. This would also help break the log jam in the current preference point system. Preference point applicants wishing to retain their preference points if unsuccessful in their first choice option would simply not chose to apply for a second or third choice option. The revenue increase portion of this plan comes in the form of an additional application charge for each of the second and third choice options. A person applying for only a first choice would see no increase in license costs. Applicants opting for additional choices would pay an additional fee for each additional choice but would genuinely have a chance at that tag, as is generally not the case presently.
The big plus is an applicant could apply for those highly coveted tags without hurting your chances of drawing your regular first choice option.
If you agree that the "Fair License Fee Proposal" is a viable alternative to substantial license fee increases please share this page with others. Print it and contact Wyoming Game and Fish and let your feelings be known.


CONTACT LIST

HD 60 Representative John Freeman 2340 North Carolina Way Green River WY 82935 (307) 875-7378 [email protected]
HD 20 Representative Kathy Davison P.O. Box 602 Kemmerer WY 83101 (307) 877-6483 [email protected]
HD 36 Representative Gerald Gay 364 South Socony Place Casper WY 82609 (307) 265-5187 [email protected]
HD 18 Representative Allen Jaggi P.O. Box 326 Lyman WY 82937 (307) 786-2817 [email protected]
HD 24 Representative Samuel Krone P.O. Box 2481 Cody WY 82414 (307) 587-4530 (307) 272-0082 [email protected]
SD 21 Senator Bruce Burns P.O. Box 6027 Sheridan WY 82801 (307) 672-6491 [email protected]
SD 17 Senator Leland Christensen 220 West Alta Alta WY 83414 (307) 353-8204 [email protected]
SD 16 Senator Dan Dockstader P.O. Box 129 Afton WY 83110 (307) 885-9705 [email protected]
SD 01 Senator Ogden Driskill P.O. Box 155 Devils Tower WY 82714 (307) 680-5555 [email protected]
SD 08 Senator Floyd Esquibel 1222 West 31st St Cheyenne WY 82001 (307) 638-6529 [email protected]

Wyoming Game and Fish 307-777-4600
 
Excuse me, but I dont trust you.

I dont know you from a turnip and you're asking me to completely change the current draw system.

We have testimony from one other guy, that I dont know from a turnip (also dont trust), that says you dont have a clue how the draw works.

Who should I believe?

FACTS trump "trust me".
 
there are currently only 3 choices, revenue is $3,000,000 when applied to 2012 stats, the dollar amount would start at 20$ for res ant per choice and go up porportionatly to the lice fee cost all the way up to spec nr elk,It woul apply to all draws, Cost to game and fish is the TWD reprogramming the computer and public education costs. This draft will be reviewed by the leg and G&F but this is a chance for this forum to add or refine it as well.
 
google wyo legislature hunting lic draw proceedure check for your self. what I posted is a quote
 
Is the 3 million assuming every single applicant will apply for more than one choice? All 3 choices?

I know its tough to predict who will spend the extra money for more choices...but is this best case or worst case?

How much more will it be for NR's? How much more would a NR have to pay. They want actual numbers, not proportionately.

The proposal needs to reflect these things in a clear manner. I wouldnt ever send your original draft to a legislator or commission.

Just redraft the entire package, stating firm numbers, appropriate links that you already provided, etc.

I'm coming around to the idea, but I wont support it and ask others to until its clear.
 
I applied the drawing stats from the wyo game and fish drawing odds table for 2012 to arrive at the revenue figure. using who chose first and second choices in 2012
 
If thats the case...you better be prepared to make a lot less than 3 million.

Never underestimate the cheapness of Resident hunters when it comes to buying a license.

Many will opt out of appling for a second choice if it costs them anything.

They'll wait and gamble on the leftover list.
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-20-12 AT 04:04PM (MST)[p]BuzzH---We're on the same page now. I thought you were talking about the present system and you were talking about this proposal. A guy should never draw a tag on a second or third choice until all the first choice applicants for that tag are served. Sorry I got confused! The proposal strang has mentioned may have some merit to get some additional funds. However, I would have to agree that based on his 3 million dollar figure it is way more than G&F would ever make if people would have to start paying fees to add more choices on their application. I would suggest that a huge percentage would tell the G&F to screw that because there is already a lot of criticism about the cost of PPs alone. You also mentioned the feelings of many about any type of license fee increase they might have to pay. To count on a lot of extra money coming in on an optional system is not really living reality. Hells bells, most won't even give a buck or two to the Access Yes and the Search & Rescue checkoff on their applications, so why would they all of a sudden want to pay big bucks for more choices when the price of the tag is also going up quite a bit, even if it ends up less than presently proposed! I do commend strang for looking at ways to help the G&F budget and if this proposal is worked on a lot more and doesn't cost a lot to institute, maybe it would bring in some needed cash without screwing people up that don't want to use it and just make one choice.
 
What do we know about the process/placement of money from the draw time to the awarding of refunds? Where does that money go? Would having an earlier draw deadline and a longer time to "hold" money increase revenue at all? What if all applications were due Jan. 20th and that money was held until June 4th? I hate the idea as I usually am using my tax return to apply to licenses. But get all that money in an account with a decent interest rate and see how it would look? Instead of a staggered application process etc...
 
at todays interest rates you are not looking at much money. That dollar amount is already figured in the game and fish budget and it aint much so another 30 or 60 days is not a great increase
 
You gonns see a big increase anyway. No two ways around that at least this way you get something for your dollar and it optional
 
Setting aside your disagreement with the basic premise. If this passed would you spend the extra 20$ for a second choice?
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-20-12 AT 04:40PM (MST)[p]Me personally?

Yes. But I take hunting a tad bit more seriously than most.

All I'm saying is that you're looking best case scenerio. I think you should look at it realistically. You wont get anywhere near 100% of the 2012 applicants to bite on your proposal.

Many are only interested in one area, many wont pay for the slight chance they'd have, and some are just plain cheap.

If I were trying to get something like this passed, I'd be inclined to be as open and honest about the numbers as I could be. I'd say something like, "If everyone that applied in 2012 buys at least the second choice chance, the potential to raise 3 million is there. If only 50% participate, we're looking at 1.5 million".

In the past, hunters have been ripped big-time on all these kind of proposals. I'm not against your idea, we just need to be honest and concise with the proposal as well as fully aware of how it will impact all of us.

Thats just not where we're at with this deal yet.

It needs to be rewritten, its a garbled mess right now.
 
It wasnt 100% of the applicants I only applied the applicants that chose to apply for a second and third choice. I have a spread sheet with the details but it is not postable on this format. If anything I think more people would choose a second and third choice if they knew it counted
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-20-12 AT 04:56PM (MST)[p]I guess I would say ditto to the response BuzzH just posted above on your question. Work everything out in a rewrite getting all the Is dotted and the Ts crossed and I could probably support it. The big problem is that you are ASSUMING things to get your figures and you know what the old saying is about that!!!
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-20-12 AT 05:01PM (MST)[p]Got it, thanks. I know where you got your numbers.

I still think the reason many apply for a second choice is because it doesnt cost them anything...money or points. It will change when theres a Jackson-Grant involved and their points being gone.

Would it be possible to get another draft together thats a bit more clear?

I'd maybe have some time to put something together and get a draft your way.
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-20-12 AT 05:22PM (MST)[p]tag type first second third 2nd&3rd multiplier revenue
1 res deer 17,854 6,329 2,054 8,383 $25.00 $209,575.00
2 res ant 26,449 14,737 8,198 22,935 $20.00 $458,700.00
3 res elk 33,331 17,677 7,708 25,385 $35.00 $888,475.00
4 non res deer 6,688 1,932 622 2,554 $60.00 $153,240.00
5 non res deer spc 1,152 397 112 509 $100.00 $50,900.00
6 non res deer pIp 0 $60.00 $0.00
7 non res deer spc pIp 0 $100.00 $0.00
8 non res ant 7,362 6,522 3,496 10,018 $50.00 $500,900.00
9 non res ant spc 1,790 830 441 1,271 $75.00 $95,325.00
10 non res ant pIp 0 $50.00 $0.00
11 non res ant spc pIp 0 $75.00 $0.00
12 non res elk 10,070 2,696 1,096 3,792 $110.00 $417,120.00
13 non res spc elk 793 215 1,008 $200.00 $201,600.00
14 non res elk pIp 12,947 0 $110.00 $0.00
15 non res spc pIp 0 $200.00 $0.00
16
17 0 $2,975,835.00
there it is best I could do in this format
 
All right...we're loggin'.

I'm seeing your point.

Let me send you a PM with my phone number...
 
"google wyo legislature hunting lic draw proceedure check for your self. what I posted is a quote "

What you posted is nothing but an external review of the process, full of assumptions, from 1997. You might call the Dept and talk to the head honcho.

Back to your proposal, it may have merrit with some specifics layed out.
 
That chart is the kind of thing people need to see and not just hear when a change is proposed. Good luck on the plan because it just might work and bring in some decent money to help things out if it doesn't change the draws and affect those with PPs in the system. I'm also open to helping get it through as a NR if it is redone and worked out properly. Just let me know if you need anything since I'm retired and have plenty of time during the winter to work on stuff. Kudos for thinking out of the box and trying to help and I apologize for deep sixing it before we fully discussed what you were trying to tell us!!!
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-20-12 AT 06:15PM (MST)[p]No problem you guys are big dogs in this forum pass this around get some input. State committe that governs this is looking for input on this. I have the backing of many legislators already. I also have this stuff posted on a blog www.drawalicensenow.blogspot.com
 
I have had many conversations with the Game and Fish dept heads. And this is how it is done
 
Great I will be meeting with the house sub committe on this in January. I am open to any and all suggestions
 
After chewing on it for a few minutes, the first thing it will do is force every applicant to pay the additional money or never draw a 2nd choice random draw tag. At that point, whats the benefit other than to change the random draw structure to a 1-3 choice draw and get more money?
Just as well charge more money now, change the random draw to all 3 choices and save everybody a bunch of time.
 
Alright so, here is the way I understand what you're trying to get at:

Take the current draw process found here:

http://legisweb.state.wy.us/progeval/reports/1997/License/license.htm


Augment the drawing process to consider 2nd and 3rd choices on either a Resident or Non-Resident applications that choose to pay an additional fee in the RANDOM draw only for deer, elk and pronghorn. Maximum number of additional choices considered will be (2) per species.

Resident Deer: $25 per additional choice
Elk: $35 per additional choice
Pronghorn: $20 per additional choice

Regular fee NR Random Deer: $60 per additional choice
elk: $110 per additional choice
Pronghorn: $50 per addtional choice

Special fee NR Random: Deer: $100 per additional choice
elk: $200 per additional choice
Pronghorn: $75 per addtional choice

Preference point drawing pools will remain the same as current drawing protocal.

I'd strongly recommend that if an applicant draws any of their 3 choices under this proposal, their points go to zero.

This proposal would have the potential to raise up to about 3 million in revenue assuming that all applicants that applied in the random draw in 2012 for second and third choice, would apply for the same choices in the future.

I'd also like to see a pro's VS. con's section for both Residents and Non-Residents.

This is what I understand about your proposal...what am I missing?
 

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

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

IMG_4167.JPG
Screenshot_20220825-080603_Gallery.jpg
FB_IMG_1639847058966.jpg
C0BEC9BB-CEAC-4032-BF11-E7E4C3E0F284.jpeg
98E3DD12-37E5-4F0E-B841-3A3E27EC221A.jpeg
1693610742267.png
4B033E58-51D1-474C-9F58-A4A3A7679B31.jpeg
20181009_182318.jpg
1658977149149.jpeg
6 pt bull 7-21 #2.JPG
IMG_1047.jpeg
IMG_5278.jpeg
Back
Top Bottom