Wyoming Non-Resident Random Moose

Iowan

Iowan

Active Member
Messages
542

Did 1,436 non-residents submit payment of $2,750, pay the processing fee, pay their credit card interest for a 1 in 1,436 chance to draw one random tag in Wyoming in 2024? 0.07% chance to draw a tag?

I cannot be reading this correctly. Wyoming only gives one random tag to non-residents.

Bonus, preference, squared, etc. does it really matter at all with 1,436 people begging on their knees for a 0.07% chance to draw a single tag plus fronting $2,750?

Wyoming will keep just enough in front of you to keep the money flowing and not one ounce more. I cannot say I blame but be informed.

Is Wyoming moose, non-resident random the worst odds/option/deal in western big game hunting applications when you factor in cost, odds, and moving goal posts? If not, what is worse? Wyoming sheep?

Stop buying Wyoming moose points, stop applying in this silly system - GO TO ALASKA AS SOON AS POSSIBLE! Yes, I have followed my own advice.
 
Iowan said:

Did 1,436 non-residents submit payment of $2,750, pay the processing fee, pay their credit card interest for a 1 in 1,436 chance to draw one random tag in Wyoming in 2024? 0.07% chance to draw a tag?

I cannot be reading this correctly. Wyoming only gives one random tag to non-residents.

Bonus, preference, squared, etc. does it really matter at all with 1,436 people begging on their knees for a 0.07% chance to draw a single tag plus fronting $2,750?

Wyoming will keep just enough in front of you to keep the money flowing and not one ounce more. I cannot say I blame but be informed.

Is Wyoming moose, non-resident random the worst odds/option/deal in western big game hunting applications when you factor in cost, odds, and moving goal posts? If not, what is worse? Wyoming sheep?

Stop buying Wyoming moose points, stop applying in this silly system - GO TO ALASKA AS SOON AS POSSIBLE! Yes, I have followed my own advice.
Click to expand...
No offense, but you haven't been following the m/s draw allocation the last few years, have you ?
 
jm77 said:
No offense, but you haven't been following the m/s draw allocation the last few years, have you ?
Click to expand...
I am not easily offended :) so it is ok. I am aware there were changes to 90/10 it is just stark to see it in the spreadsheet. I did not know it would reduce the # of random tags to uno. This does likely help explain why 1,436 non-residents front the money for 0.07% chance to draw - they did not fully understand the math behind this either.

0.07% for a single random tag! Those are one tag in 20 lifetimes odds with an average life expectancy of 72 years.

I am not being critical of Wyoming only offering one random tag - they can do what they want to nonresidents. I am shocked that 1,436 people fronted the money, etc. for the 0.07% chance to draw - you are one lucky SOB if you beat those odds.

I would challenge them to just eliminate all nonresident moose, sheep, bison, and mountain goat tags saving nonresidents a lot of money. For all practical purposes they have done this already for 99.9% of applicants.

A serious question: did a whole bunch of people apply for a random tag in units without a random tag or is everyone lumped into one giant pool of applicants?
 
Iowan said:
I am not easily offended :) so it is ok. I am aware there were changes to 90/10 it is just stark to see it in the spreadsheet. I did not know it would reduce the # of random tags to uno. This does likely help explain why 1,436 non-residents front the money for 0.07% chance to draw - they did not fully understand the math behind this either.

0.07% for a single random tag! Those are one tag in 20 lifetimes odds with an average life expectancy of 72 years.

I am not being critical of Wyoming only offering one random tag - they can do what they want to nonresidents. I am shocked that 1,436 people fronted the money, etc. for the 0.07% chance to draw - you are one lucky SOB if you beat those odds.

I would challenge them to just eliminate all nonresident moose, sheep, bison, and mountain goat tags saving nonresidents a lot of money. For all practical purposes they have done this already for 99.9% of applicants.

A serious question: did a whole bunch of people apply for a random tag in units without a random tag or is everyone lumped into one giant pool of applicants?
Click to expand...
I'll tell you why they applied.

Same reason I've applied for the last 42 years for a ram tag.

This year 3 tags 1,512 total applied...guess who's hunting a ram this fall?
 
BuzzH said:
I'll tell you why they applied.

Same reason I've applied for the last 42 years for a ram tag.

This year 3 tags 1,512 total applied...guess who's hunting a ram this fall?
Click to expand...
One of those is 3x better odds for a sheep and the other is 3x worse odds for a small moose.
 
yotebuster17 said:
One of those is 3x better odds for a sheep and the other is 3x worse odds for a small moose.
Click to expand...
Right but still total chit odds. One of my best friends drew the state raffle ram tag in Idaho when it was open for hells canyon with $50 worth of tickets.

We also drew a party muskox tag with way less than 1-200 odds.
 
^^^ correct, everyone else probably told that applicant they were wasting their time and money.

For the record, there was a bull moose killed a while ago in that unit that was one of the top 3 moose killed in the 3 year recording period for B&C.
 
Iowan said:
I am not easily offended :) so it is ok. I am aware there were changes to 90/10 it is just stark to see it in the spreadsheet. I did not know it would reduce the # of random tags to uno. This does likely help explain why 1,436 non-residents front the money for 0.07% chance to draw - they did not fully understand the math behind this either.

0.07% for a single random tag! Those are one tag in 20 lifetimes odds with an average life expectancy of 72 years.

I am not being critical of Wyoming only offering one random tag - they can do what they want to nonresidents. I am shocked that 1,436 people fronted the money, etc. for the 0.07% chance to draw - you are one lucky SOB if you beat those odds.

I would challenge them to just eliminate all nonresident moose, sheep, bison, and mountain goat tags saving nonresidents a lot of money. For all practical purposes they have done this already for 99.9% of applicants.

A serious question: did a whole bunch of people apply for a random tag in units without a random tag or is everyone lumped into one giant pool of applicants?
Click to expand...
Can you explain where you came up with 1437 random applicants?
 
BuzzH said:
Right but still total chit odds. One of my best friends drew the state raffle ram tag in Idaho when it was open for hells canyon with $50 worth of tickets.

We also drew a party muskox tag with way less than 1-200 odds.
Click to expand...
I totally get long odds, I’ve had a NV dream tag, a NV PIW deer tag, and one year had 2 sheep tags a Utah Mtn goat tag an AZ elk tag and a MT breaks rifle tag all in one. I get my name in a lot of hats, but I still wasn’t dumb enough to spend $150 nonrefundable on a moose tag that could be had with 1:5 odds in ID or a sheep tag that had 0% odds.
 
Iowan said:
I am not easily offended :) so it is ok. I am aware there were changes to 90/10 it is just stark to see it in the spreadsheet. I did not know it would reduce the # of random tags to uno. This does likely help explain why 1,436 non-residents front the money for 0.07% chance to draw - they did not fully understand the math behind this either.

0.07% for a single random tag! Those are one tag in 20 lifetimes odds with an average life expectancy of 72 years.

I am not being critical of Wyoming only offering one random tag - they can do what they want to nonresidents. I am shocked that 1,436 people fronted the money, etc. for the 0.07% chance to draw - you are one lucky SOB if you beat those odds.

I would challenge them to just eliminate all nonresident moose, sheep, bison, and mountain goat tags saving nonresidents a lot of money. For all practical purposes they have done this already for 99.9% of applicants.

A serious question: did a whole bunch of people apply for a random tag in units without a random tag or is everyone lumped into one giant pool of applicants?
Click to expand...

612 applied for 1 license, the others were drawing dead.
 
1,190 NR had 21 or more points going into the draws. I can see a lot of these guys putting in for PP draws just hoping for Lady Luck.
Any NR that applied in the PP draw would automatically be put into the random if not drawn in PP draw. Even if no tag in random for that unit. Not saying all these guys applied, just suggesting where some of these random apps came from. And I know some are clueless. Without better breakdown of apps per point tier hard to tell.
 
Great PSA @Iowan

Most other states will not allow the user to submit a dead application. Wyoming is an outlier in this regard and this demonstrates the WYGFD disregard for their customer's dollars.
Especially because Wyoming is wasting hundreds in CC fees (of their customer's money) to accept a dead app.

WY GFD software could easily warn the user not to submit a dead app (based on user points and zero (ram) to one (moose) NR random allocation.

Instead, WYGFD takes the money for months when they already know the result is UNSUCCESSFUL. And WYGFD cuts the CC companies in on this fraud by kicking them back $90/app in unnecessary CC fees.

This post is about moose, but the result here is even worse for ram as the NR random allocation was zero.

If the fools still want to get a ram point this year, fine. Do it in points only period, not as an active app. It is fraudulent for WYGFD to waste $90 in CC fees in this manner.

WYGFD really wants to collect interest on $3K for a few months badly enough that they commit fraud on their customer?
 
Last edited:
Or a person could read the regs and quotas and know there was no licenses available.
Stupid is as stupid does isn't that the saying?

Does WG&F really collect interest on app fees?
 
A notification/warning system of some sort was discussed at one of the Task Force meetings a few years ago. Not this exact issue but similar. It didn't seem to get much traction with the TF. I suspect at some point it will happen. When it does, I wonder what the next complaint will be?
 
wytex said:
Or a person could read the regs and quotas and know there was no licenses available.
Stupid is as stupid does isn't that the saying?

Does WG&F really collect interest on app fees?
Click to expand...
That's the only possible reason it takes 3 weeks after the deadline for results to come out
 
If I remember correctly, Jennifer addressed interest income on nr Elk apps back when the Commission was discussing adding in the cc charges. I believe the number was about 45K back then. Probably worth sending her an email.
 
Last edited:
Crampy said:
Great PSA @Iowan

Most other states will not allow the user to submit a dead application. Wyoming is an outlier in this regard and this demonstrates the WYGFD disregard for their customer's dollars.
Especially because Wyoming is wasting hundreds in CC fees (of their customer's money) to accept a dead app.

WY GFD software could easily warn the user not to submit a dead app (based on user points and zero (ram) to one (moose) NR random allocation.

Instead, WYGFD takes the money for months when they already know the result is UNSUCCESSFUL. And WYGFD cuts the CC companies in on this fraud by kicking them back $90/app in unnecessary CC fees.

This post is about moose, but the result here is even worse for ram as the NR random allocation was zero.

If the fools still want to get a ram point this year, fine. Do it in points only period, not as an active app. It is fraudulent for WYGFD to waste $90 in CC fees in this manner.

WYGFD really wants to collect interest on $3K for a few months badly enough that they commit fraud on their customer?
Click to expand...

$90 cc fee?
 
WapitiBob said:
If I remember correctly, Jennifer addressed interest income on nr Elk apps back when the Commission was discussing adding in the cc charges. I believe the number was about 45K back then. Probably worth sending her an email.
Click to expand...

Just a FYI, Jennifer has left the WGFD.

I guy named Josh has taken her job.

Someone will have to contact Josh to determine how much interest income the WGFD accrues off license application fees.

ClearCreek
 
newhunter said:
Could be some are still buy points in case Wyoming eliminates preference. They will have better standing in the law suit.
Click to expand...
True. But wouldn’t those guys just buy points in the points only period? Rather than drawing dead in the draw? Drawing dead seems silly when you are wasting CC fee, app fee and giving WY the interest on $3,000 for several months.
 
You’re probably right. Most of them are ignorant to how it works. Wyoming has made it complicated. Most don’t try to learn the system.

Some may be playing the Wyoming preference game. No matter the cost. Waiting for the change. Wyoming has created allot of resentment.
 
nripepi said:
... Is there some sweet heart deal with a processing company?
Click to expand...
You only need to look at NM to understand that something smells like fraud with WY CC fees on refunded transactions.

How can NM keep about $28,000 of my family's money for months, and then refund it without charging me a 2.5-3% CC fee? 2.5% of 28,000 is $700.

But yet my family of 4 only pays NM:
$65 & $15/species. For 4 of us, our total OOP for about 24 unsuccessful apps is about $500.

If the CC processor is charging NM $700, then NM would be upside down by $200 on my family every year. No way NM is doing that.

If you believe that WY is really paying CC fees on refunded transactions, then you also have to believe that NM is losing money every year when my family applies. BS!
 
Crampy said:
You only need to look at NM to understand that something smells like fraud with WY CC fees on refunded transactions.

How can NM keep about $28,000 of my family's money for months, and then refund it without charging me a 2.5-3% CC fee? 2.5% of 28,000 is $700.

But yet my family of 4 only pays NM:
$65 & $15/species. For 4 of us, our total OOP for about 24 unsuccessful apps is about $500.

If the CC processor is charging NM $700, then NM would be upside down by $200 on my family every year. No way NM is doing that.

If you believe that WY is really paying CC fees on refunded transactions, then you also have to believe that NM is losing money every year when my family applies. BS!
Click to expand...

Here's an idea, why don't you call the Fiscal Division Chief and ask him directly? I'll even make it easier for you
[email protected] is their email syntax.
 
ClearCreek said:
You could try contacting Dirk, but since he is fairly new in that position he may not know the answer off the top of his head.

ClearCreek

'''
Click to expand...

I know what the charges are, I watched Jennifer tell the Commission what the processor charged for the purchase as well as the refund. Crampy has been told what those charges are, and why the dept settled on 2.5%.
 
Last edited:
WapitiBob said:
Here's an idea, why don't you call the Fiscal Division Chief and ask him directly?...
Click to expand...
WY charging 2.5% CC fees on refunded transactions is fraudulent. We don't have to ask the fraudulent organization to admit their fraud. They simply won't.

Instead, look at the directly analogous situation, NEW MEXICO. New Mexico does not charge any CC fees because these are net zero transactions except for the few folks that are drawn. The processor refunds the tag money and the tag fee transaction nets to zero. The processors don't make money on these net zero transactions as a cost of doing business. They are happy to have the client anyway as there are many finalized transactions that do result in a fee.

If you believe WY is really paying 2.5% CC fees on refunded transactions, then you must also believe that New Mexico is running their entire draw at a LOSS. Would New Mexico be silly enough to do that? The $65 NM base license and $15/species is nowhere near enough to cover the alleged 2.5% CC fee on the $7800 I "loan" them for all species.

I pay $65 + $15/species (*6). So, about $155.
2.5% * $7800 = $195.
NM would be $40 underwater. Simply not plausible that NM would run an unprofitable draw.

Thus, WY GFD is fibbing and simply pocketing that extra 2.5% CC fee. It is easy to sneak this right past most consumers as we understand that CC fees are very real in many situations. But those of us who also apply in New Mexico know that WYGFD is pulling a fast one.
 
Crampy said:
WY charging 2.5% CC fees on refunded transactions is fraudulent. We don't have to ask the fraudulent organization to admit their fraud. They simply won't.

Instead, look at the directly analogous situation, NEW MEXICO. New Mexico does not charge any CC fees because these are net zero transactions except for the few folks that are drawn. The processor refunds the tag money and the tag fee transaction nets to zero. The processors don't make money on these net zero transactions as a cost of doing business. They are happy to have the client anyway as there are many finalized transactions that do result in a fee.

If you believe WY is really paying 2.5% CC fees on refunded transactions, then you must also believe that New Mexico is running their entire draw at a LOSS. Would New Mexico be silly enough to do that? The $65 NM base license and $15/species is nowhere near enough to cover the alleged 2.5% CC fee on the $7800 I "loan" them for all species.

I pay $65 + $15/species (*6). So, about $155.
2.5% * $7800 = $195.
NM would be $40 underwater. Simply not plausible that NM would run an unprofitable draw.

Thus, WY GFD is fibbing and simply pocketing that extra 2.5% CC fee. It is easy to sneak this right past most consumers as we understand that CC fees are very real in many situations. But those of us who also apply in New Mexico know better.
Click to expand...
If you don't like how Wyoming does business, just don't apply.

Pretty simple.
 
Crampy said:
WY charging 2.5% CC fees on refunded transactions is fraudulent. We don't have to ask the fraudulent organization to admit their fraud. They simply won't.

Instead, look at the directly analogous situation, NEW MEXICO. New Mexico does not charge any CC fees because these are net zero transactions except for the few folks that are drawn. The processor refunds the tag money and the tag fee transaction nets to zero. The processors don't make money on these net zero transactions as a cost of doing business. They are happy to have the client anyway as there are many finalized transactions that do result in a fee.

If you believe WY is really paying 2.5% CC fees on refunded transactions, then you must also believe that New Mexico is running their entire draw at a LOSS. Would New Mexico be silly enough to do that? The $65 NM base license and $15/species is nowhere near enough to cover the alleged 2.5% CC fee on the $7800 I "loan" them for all species.

I pay $65 + $15/species (*6). So, about $155.
2.5% * $7800 = $195.
NM would be $40 underwater. Simply not plausible that NM would run an unprofitable draw.

Thus, WY GFD is fibbing and simply pocketing that extra 2.5% CC fee. It is easy to sneak this right past most consumers as we understand that CC fees are very real in many situations. But those of us who also apply in New Mexico know that WYGFD is pulling a fast one.
Click to expand...


You have NEVER been told the processor charges 2.5% on the refund side of the transaction.

One more time; Wyoming pays 2.3% on the sale and pays $0.10 on the refund. The fee is charged for all purchases dept wide when using a card, not just licenses.
 
Last edited:
WapitiBob said:
Are you brain dead?
...
Click to expand...
WY GFD is charged 2.3% by their processor on the original tag sale. WYGFD upcharges the consumer to 2.5% because they're good people.

When I don't draw, WY GFD is refunded that 2.3% and instead pays only that $0.10. Full tag price is refund back to consumer, but not the 2.5% CC fee he paid. WGF pockets that.

LARGE merchants (e.g. WY GFD) have preferable contracts with processors and absolutely DO get that original 2.3% refunded back to them when a refund is processed. This is why a retailer will always require that you do a return/refund back to the original payment method. I.e., retailers will not allow you to get a cash refund if you used a card.

Best evidence to prove this is to look towards New Mexico G&F. New Mexico does not charge any CC fee when they take my $7800 and hold it for a couple months. They would be upside down on their draw if they were simply absorbing CC fees on that $7800.
 
Crampy said:
WY GFD is charged 2.3% by their processor on the original tag sale. WYGFD upcharges the consumer to 2.5% because they're good people.

When I don't draw, WY GFD is refunded that 2.3% and instead pays only that $0.10. Full tag price is refund back to consumer, but not the 2.5% CC fee he paid. WGF pockets that.

LARGE merchants (e.g. WY GFD) have preferable contracts with processors and absolutely DO get that original 2.3% refunded back to them when a refund is processed. This is why a retailer will always require that you do a return/refund back to the original payment method. I.e., retailers will not allow you to get a cash refund if you used a card.

Best evidence to prove this is to look towards New Mexico G&F. New Mexico does not charge any CC fee when they take my $7800 and hold it for a couple months. They would be upside down on their draw if they were simply absorbing CC fees on that $7800.
Click to expand...
Jimmy crack corn....
 
Crampy said:
WY GFD is charged 2.3% by their processor on the original tag sale. WYGFD upcharges the consumer to 2.5% because they're good people.

When I don't draw, WY GFD is refunded that 2.3% and instead pays only that $0.10. Full tag price is refund back to consumer, but not the 2.5% CC fee he paid. WGF pockets that.

LARGE merchants (e.g. WY GFD) have preferable contracts with processors and absolutely DO get that original 2.3% refunded back to them when a refund is processed. This is why a retailer will always require that you do a return/refund back to the original payment method. I.e., retailers will not allow you to get a cash refund if you used a card.

Best evidence to prove this is to look towards New Mexico G&F. New Mexico does not charge any CC fee when they take my $7800 and hold it for a couple months. They would be upside down on their draw if they were simply absorbing CC fees on that $7800.
Click to expand...

You don't have the slightest clue if WY gets the 2.3% refunded.
Call the Fiscal Chief and post up the conversation. There's a reason the dept started charging the fee after they lost 8MIl in gen funds.
 
newhunter said:
Or get it changed. Isn't that what you do?
Click to expand...
If it's worthwhile, sure. I don't do much or waste my time trying to change things these days unless it directly benefits resident hunters. There is a benefit to residents to change the random/preference split to 50/50, so I'll pursue that. If that also benefits a NR as an ancillary result, so be it. Wouldn't bother if it only benefits NR hunters.

Good luck with your lawsuit.
 
House majority whip Cyrus Western had his own reasons for why the legislature voted the way they did.

It just so happened that various online narcissists agreed with Cy. And then those narcissists stepped forward and tried to take credit for legislation they had very little to do with.
 
Crampy said:
House majority whip Cyrus Western had his own reasons for why the legislature voted the way they did.

It just so happened that various online narcissists agreed with Cy. And then those narcissists stepped forward and tried to take credit for legislation they had very little to do with.
Click to expand...
You have no idea what happened, I would share some text messages that killed the squared bonus point bill, but you seem to think you have it all figured out.

Carry on with your nonsense.
 
newhunter said:
You’re probably right. Most of them are ignorant to how it works. Wyoming has made it complicated. Most don’t try to learn the system.

Some may be playing the Wyoming preference game. No matter the cost. Waiting for the change. Wyoming has created allot of resentment.
Click to expand...
You don't have resentment, do you?
 
BuzzH said:
If it's worthwhile, sure. I don't do much or waste my time trying to change things these days unless it directly benefits resident hunters. There is a benefit to residents to change the random/preference split to 50/50, so I'll pursue that. If that also benefits a NR as an ancillary result, so be it. Wouldn't bother if it only benefits NR hunters.

Good luck with your lawsuit.
Click to expand...
So if you think it's "worthwhile" it's good. If other people think a change is worthwhile, you state:
"If you don't like how Wyoming does business, just don't apply.
Pretty simple."

I believe that hypocritical.
 
BuzzH said:
If it's worthwhile, sure. I don't do much or waste my time trying to change things these days unless it directly benefits resident hunters. There is a benefit to residents to change the random/preference split to 50/50, so I'll pursue that. If that also benefits a NR as an ancillary result, so be it. Wouldn't bother if it only benefits NR hunters.

Good luck with your lawsuit.
Click to expand...
I have stated on this form and will state it again.
I will not sue.
I have only stated others may.
 
newhunter said:
So if you think it's "worthwhile" it's good. If other people think a change is worthwhile, you state:
"If you don't like how Wyoming does business, just don't apply.
Pretty simple."

I believe that hypocritical.
Click to expand...
Feel free to believe what you want as a NR, don't care. Cry and whine all you want. File lawsuits all you want. Take your money to another state that treats you better, you have 49 to choose from. Honestly, couldn't care less.

The only way things change is if Residents make it happen.

Just the way it works, our wildlife, and our decisions on how we allocate same what draw system we want, etc.

Get over it, or die with it, again, don't care what you think or what you want changed.

If you want to have a discussion about hypocrisy, NRs complaining about Wyoming, while the States they're residents in treat NR of their states the exact same way...the absolute height of hypocrisy.

What have you done that benefits NRs in you state? Be specific.
 
newhunter said:
The state I reside in (for now) puts ALL applicants in the same pool. 100%

I was pointing out ARROGANCE and HYPOCRISY.
Click to expand...
Why don't you get a set aside pool for NRs only, say a guaranteed 20-25% of your available tags for all species?

Wyoming did that for decades...still does for deer, elk, and pronghorn.


Your state sounds stingy.
 
newhunter said:
Everyone in the same pool. Equal chances.
That sounds stingy to you ??
Many think that is fair.
I know the world is not fair. No one saved me a Dodo bird.

Wondering if others here notice the ARROGANCE and HYPOCRISY.
Click to expand...
I sure hope so, not giving NR's in your state their own set aside of tags seems very hypocritical and arrogant.

Your state is not guaranteeing NR's will draw a single tag.
 
BuzzH said:
I sure hope so, not giving NR's in your state their own set aside of tags seems very hypocritical and arrogant.

Your state is not guaranteeing NR's will draw a single tag.
Click to expand...
So your take away is the state I reside in (not my state) is "hypocritical and arrogant" ? Because it gives residents and nonresidents the same chances.? Not doing unfair set asides?
Guaranteeing everyone equal chance.

Telling people that want to talk about making changes:

"If you don't like how Wyoming does business, just don't apply.
Pretty simple."

After you played a role in making changes to how Wyoming does business.
Is that hypocritical or arrogant ?
Or is it bullying ?
 
newhunter said:
So your take away is the state I reside in (not my state) is "hypocritical and arrogant" ? Because it gives residents and nonresidents the same chances.? Not doing unfair set asides?
Guaranteeing everyone equal chance.

Telling people that want to talk about making changes:

"If you don't like how Wyoming does business, just don't apply.
Pretty simple."

After you played a role in making changes to how Wyoming does business.
Is that hypocritical or arrogant ?
Or is it bullying ?
Click to expand...
But, with Residents outnumbering NR applicants by thousands, there really is not equal chance. Also a good chance that not a single NR will draw a tag.

Wyoming guarantee's that NR will draw because NR's have their own set aside of licenses. Your state does not afford NR's that luxury.

No, it's not hypocritical at all, the way wildlife management works in the United States is that each state can manage their wildlife as they see fit. Why I also don't care if your state sets aside tags or not, but it is fair to point out the differences between NR's having guaranteed tags or not.

Show me where I've asked your state to change anything, whined about the quotas, whined about the cost, whined about the system they use to allocate tags, just point it out.

I wish you luck because I never have, mainly because, unlike you, I understand how the system of wildlife Management works in the United States. Something you could use some work on, it would relieve your resentment issues you have with Wyoming.

Each state has an obligation only to its Residents, so, yeah, I couldn't care less if you ever apply here again. Take your applications to one of the other 49 states that you don't resent.

Finally, in only makes one thing, and that's sense to look out for the best interests of Wyoming Residents first. Something we should have done a lot more of a long time ago. The NR entitlement wouldn't be like it is now.
 
Telling people that want to talk about making changes:

"If you don't like how Wyoming does business, just don't apply.
Pretty simple."

After you played a role in making changes to how Wyoming does business.
Is that hypocritical or arrogant ?
Or is it bullying ?

You may have forgot to address these questions ?
 
newhunter said:
Telling people that want to talk about making changes:

"If you don't like how Wyoming does business, just don't apply.
Pretty simple."

After you played a role in making changes to how Wyoming does business.
Is that hypocritical or arrogant ?
Or is it bullying ?

You may have forgot to address these questions ?
Click to expand...
Not hypocritical, arrogant or bullying at all, as a Resident of Wyoming, its my/our obligation to make changes that benefit Resident hunters. If those changes happen to help a NR hunter too, great, if not, don't care.

I can't and won't help your resentment, that's a you problem to deal with.

While we're on the subject of not answering questions, did you forget to list all the ways you're helping NR's draw tags in your state of Residence?

I must have missed it.
 
jm77 said:
So what did you draw this year in Wyoming? Was it moose? I guess you really won't b suing then.
Click to expand...
I don't believe there is anything to sue over. Best of my knowledge no contract or agreements have been violated. I hope that clears the sue issue for you.

Using partial quotes is very often miss leading.
 
BuzzH said:
Not hypocritical, arrogant or bullying at all, as a Resident of Wyoming, its my/our obligation to make changes that benefit Resident hunters. If those changes happen to help a NR hunter too, great, if not, don't care.

I can't and won't help your resentment, that's a you problem to deal with.

While we're on the subject of not answering questions, did you forget to list all the ways you're helping NR's draw tags in your state of Residence?

I must have missed it.
Click to expand...
There has been another post where someone wanted to talk about making changes and your statement was:
"If you don't like how Wyoming does business, just don't apply.
Pretty simple." Only you get to talk about making changes?


I have addressed this question. So maybe you did miss it.
I looked into it. I stated that nonresidents have the same chances as residents. Fair. Nonresidents can draw ever tag. No set aside schemes that favor one group over another. (resident, nonresident, outfitter, landowner) In order to get some else to pay for the management of their wildlife. Nothing needs to change in my view. It's very fair to nonresidents and residents.

We are all hunters and if we keep dividing ourselves anti-hunting will continue to win.
 
newhunter said:
There has been another post where someone wanted to talk about making changes and your statement was:
"If you don't like how Wyoming does business, just don't apply.
Pretty simple." Only you get to talk about making changes?


I have addressed this question. So maybe you did miss it.
I looked into it. I stated that nonresidents have the same chances as residents. Fair. Nonresidents can draw ever tag. No set aside schemes that favor one group over another. (resident, nonresident, outfitter, landowner) In order to get some else to pay for the management of their wildlife. Nothing needs to change in my view. It's very fair to nonresidents and residents.

We are all hunters and if we keep dividing ourselves anti-hunting will continue to win.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that's the way it works big boy.

Wyoming Residents get to decide what systems we use, what allocations we want to give NR, whether we even want to give NR's a single tag.

You don't elect our state Senators or Representatives, so no, you don't have much, if any sway with how our state manages wildlife. They don't work for NR's of Wyoming.

Like I said, I don't whine about applying in other states or how they go about their business of allocating licenses. I don't whine about how they treat me as a NR there.

Not sure why you think you should be treated special here and have any say in making changes? Not up to you and it would be nice if you showed the same level of respect to the Residents of States you don't reside in.

You're entitled to apply, not apply, or sing the blues, one of which you do much better than the other 2.
 
newhunter said:
There has been another post where someone wanted to talk about making changes and your statement was:
"If you don't like how Wyoming does business, just don't apply.
Pretty simple." Only you get to talk about making changes?


I have addressed this question. So maybe you did miss it.
I looked into it. I stated that nonresidents have the same chances as residents. Fair. Nonresidents can draw ever tag. No set aside schemes that favor one group over another. (resident, nonresident, outfitter, landowner) In order to get some else to pay for the management of their wildlife. Nothing needs to change in my view. It's very fair to nonresidents and residents.

We are all hunters and if we keep dividing ourselves anti-hunting will continue to win.
Click to expand...
Tell me what "right" I have as a NR of your state to talk about or try to implement changing any State decisions your Citizens desire there?

Why should I be resentful of anything they decide to do? It's not my decision and none of my business.
 
Good greif.

I think residents are willing give up 1 more sheep and moose tag. Call it the whiners tag.

I agree with buzz. I don't like how some states do things but it's not our battle. I believe montana wanted to give 45 or 47 percent of nr deer combo tags to outtfitters. I never checked to see if it passed or not.
 
newhunter said:
There has been another post where someone wanted to talk about making changes and your statement was:
"If you don't like how Wyoming does business, just don't apply.
Pretty simple." Only you get to talk about making changes?


I have addressed this question. So maybe you did miss it.
I looked into it. I stated that nonresidents have the same chances as residents. Fair. Nonresidents can draw ever tag. No set aside schemes that favor one group over another. (resident, nonresident, outfitter, landowner) In order to get some else to pay for the management of their wildlife. Nothing needs to change in my view. It's very fair to nonresidents and residents.

We are all hunters and if we keep dividing ourselves anti-hunting will continue to win.
Click to expand...
What state do you live it that has random draw for everyone? Does your home state have elk, mule deer, whitetail, antelope, bison, sheep, moose, and Mt.Goat?
 
Doubtful its probably a whitetail state that nobody wants to hunt and the residents probably out number the non residents 1000-1 on applications
 
BuzzH said:
Tell me what "right" I have as a NR of your state to talk about or try to implement changing any State decisions your Citizens desire there?

Why should I be resentful of anything they decide to do? It's not my decision and none of my business.
Click to expand...
1. Corner Crossing
2. Oil and Gas permits
3. Mining Permits
4. Solar energy permits
5. Wind energy permits
6. Transmission line permits
7. Pipeline permits
8. Endangered species compliance with respect to most of these items.
9. Timber permits / forestry management
10. Federal Grants for all kinds of state things
11. Skiing regulations
12. Snowmobiling regulations
13. Power Plant emissions regulations
14. Waterway management
15. Water usage
16. Water contamination

I think hunting/wildlife management is the outlier. There are very few other circumstances where the constituents paying the majority of the money to manage something have no say in how it is managed. It is a unique situation. You are welcome to take away 100% of non-resident opportunity to hunt in your state but what would happen then?
 
nripepi said:
1. Corner Crossing
2. Oil and Gas permits
3. Mining Permits
4. Solar energy permits
5. Wind energy permits
6. Transmission line permits
7. Pipeline permits
8. Endangered species compliance with respect to most of these items.
9. Timber permits / forestry management
10. Federal Grants for all kinds of state things
11. Skiing regulations
12. Snowmobiling regulations
13. Power Plant emissions regulations
14. Waterway management
15. Water usage
16. Water contamination

I think hunting/wildlife management is the outlier. There are very few other circumstances where the constituents paying the majority of the money to manage something have no say in how it is managed. It is a unique situation. You are welcome to take away 100% of non-resident opportunity to hunt in your state but what would happen then?
Click to expand...
You have none of those rights on State Trust Lands. Wildlife is also a State Trust.

Get over it.

I tell you what would happen if there were no NR tags, Residents would draw a lot more tags.
 
BuzzH said:
You have none of those rights on State Trust Lands. Wildlife is also a State Trust.

Get over it.

I tell you what would happen if there were no NR tags, Residents would draw a lot more tags.
Click to expand...
Why do you have to be an a-hole to everyone is probably a better question?

Most of the those projects cross between federal, state and private lands. I definitely have a right to fight that development and land use change in Wyoming, even how it relates to wildlife impacts!

You would have close to $200 million less money brought into the state and residents would have more tags is what would happen.
 
nripepi said:
Why do you have to be an a-hole to everyone is probably a better question?

Most of the those projects cross between federal, state and private lands. I definitely have a right to fight that development and land use change in Wyoming, even how it relates to wildlife impacts!

You would have close to $200 million less money brought into the state and residents would have more tags is what would happen.
Click to expand...
Some cross jurisdictions on your list, but most are state issues and even more so when it comes to State Trust lands.

At some point you're just going to have to realize NRs have no right to anything involving the State Trust assets. Period, end of story. Probably wouldn't hurt to figure out what is a federal right versus a state right, you seem confused.

Calling names, pouting, and whining isn't going to change the facts.

You have no right to our wildlife, unless we decide to issue you a NR license. Even then, it's up to us how we choose to discriminate against you. We can shorten your seasons, make you hire a guide in designated wilderness, charge you crazy high fees, limit your allocation of tags, we could make you wear purple pants and a pink bow tie while in the field if we wanted to.

Way it works, beautiful system.
 
Last edited:
I missed the Utah news;

Credit card payment processing fees: In order to cover our increasing costs for systems and electronic payment processing, the Division will begin charging a 2.2% processing fee on all credit card transactions beginning July 1. The legislature authorized a fee up to 3% to cover these costs in the 2024 legislative session.
 
WapitiBob said:
I missed the Utah news;

Credit card payment processing fees: In order to cover our increasing costs for systems and electronic payment processing, the Division will begin charging a 2.2% processing fee on all credit card transactions beginning July 1. The legislature authorized a fee up to 3% to cover these costs in the 2024 legislative session.
Click to expand...
How dare them!! This is totally outrageous.
 
WapitiBob said:
I missed the Utah news;

Credit card payment processing fees: In order to cover our increasing costs for systems and electronic payment processing, the Division will begin charging a 2.2% processing fee on all credit card transactions beginning July 1. The legislature authorized a fee up to 3% to cover these costs in the 2024 legislative session.
Click to expand...

It is certainly fair that UDWR is charging 2.2% processing fees on completed transactions that are NOT later refunded. Remember, UDWR does not charge full tag fee up front and later refund when the tag is not drawn.

THIS IS NOT the same as WYGFD charging 2.5% on a transaction, refunding the transaction, but then the agency keeping the transaction fee even though the processor refunds transaction fee back to the merchant.

Large merchants (e.g. WYGFD) have favorable CC processing deals and are absolutely refunded those ~2.2% processing fees when a transaction is later refunded. This is why a merchant will ONLY let you have the charge reversed back to the CC you used! E.g. when you take an item back to the store. I.e., you cannot choose to get cash instead.

Apples & oranges. Pay attention to the details and you will see the WYGFD fraud at play here.

Look to New Mexico to see a fully analogous situation. NM is clearly getting the CC transaction fees refunded to them when I fail to draw my ~$7800 in tags every year. If they weren't getting those fees refunded, how would they be able to afford to run a draw with me involved when I'm only out of pocket about $150? CC fees on $7800 would be well over the $150 they got from me and they would be losing money.
 
Crampy said:
It is certainly fair that UDWR is charging 2.2% processing fees on completed transactions that are NOT later refunded. Remember, UDWR does not charge full tag fee up front and later refund when the tag is not drawn.

THIS IS NOT the same as WYGFD charging 2.5% on a transaction, refunding the transaction, but then the agency keeping the transaction fee even though the processor refunds transaction fee back to the merchant.

Large merchants (e.g. WYGFD) have favorable CC processing deals and are absolutely refunded those ~2.2% processing fees when a transaction is later refunded. This is why a merchant will ONLY let you have the charge reversed back to the CC you used! E.g. when you take an item back to the store. I.e., you cannot choose to get cash instead.

Apples & oranges. Pay attention to the details and you will see the WYGFD fraud at play here.

Look to New Mexico to see a fully analogous situation. NM is clearly getting the CC transaction fees refunded to them when I fail to draw my ~$7800 in tags every year. If they weren't getting those fees refunded, how would they be able to afford to run a draw with me involved when I'm only out of pocket about $150? CC fees on $7800 would be well over the $150 they got from me and they would be losing money.
Click to expand...
Are you back on your period crampy? It's OK my wife gets a little grumpy and crampy when on her period too.
 

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!

777A07B5-1C6C-486D-8635-D6FCC24B9228.jpeg
IMG_1045.JPG
IMG_5420.jpeg
96DB8AF2-3E2B-475A-BAB7-0291FBE08BEF.jpeg
20230814_203909.jpg
4F665966-B81B-4EC2-ADA0-9DD5EE17E99D.jpeg
7470704F-29E6-4353-8097-D2C392BA3800.jpeg
66833790-7553-44E4-8705-235DE43741C0.png
A0FD6B8E-169E-4A95-A4A9-3DBBDC8BDE83.jpeg
IMG_20220926_125354850_HDR.jpg
947A1E67-24BD-402D-A41F-CF7508289A7A.jpeg
20230814_203934.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