>Topgun,
>Where do you get that I
>don't have any skin in
>the game? I started applying
>for sheep in Wyoming as
>NR many years ago. Further,
>as a Resident, I have
>skin in any game relating
>to Wyoming's wildlife.
***Funny, but I don't see anywhere that your name was mentioned in that sentence of my post, but as always you have to get your panties in a wad and jump in to remind everyone that you have skin in everything! Thanks for reminding us, but I think by now we all know where you stand on most everything, especially after this 2015 Legislative Session!
>Wyoming needs to address the issues
>created with preference points. If
>you look at the point
>pools, there are lots of
>first year applicants, then within
>a few years, those point
>pools shrink dramatically. In other
>words, we're losing applicants very
>fast.
***Gee, I wonder why!
>I would guess the reason for
>this is that many are
>realizing they will never catch
>the thousands of applicants in
>front of them, get discouraged,
>and drop out. I don't
>blame them.
***Good guess, as it shouldn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that unless you get in near the ground floor of a PP system that has much more demand than supply that you'll never draw in a normal lifetime! Sheep and moose certainly meet that qualification and people like the OP need to know that when they ask if they haven't figured it out on their own already! I think we both covered that for the OP pretty well in our first posts.
>The challenge, IMO, is how
>do we protect guys like
>Zeke that have been applying
>faithfully, while also keeping those
>in the lower point pools
>applying?
I believe that to keep people
>interested, there are a few
>options:
>1. Do away with preference point
>all together.
>2. Make the split 50-50, thus
>giving those in lower point
>pools better random draw odds
>and make staying in more
>attractive.
>3. Cap the number of points
>that an individual applicant can
>attain.
>
>I don't really think #1 is
>a viable option, financially or
>fairness wise, this far into
>the point system.
***Agree 100%!
>I'm starting to lean toward option
>3. I think if we
>capped the number of points,
>it would accomplish a couple
>things:
>
>1. Those in the top point
>pool would quit putting off
>drawing tags and just gaining
>points, thus reducing point creep
>and would shrink the top
>point pools. There would be
>no advantage to gaining another
>point once you reached the
>top point pool.
>
>2. It would give applicants in
>the lower point pools some
>hope of eventually getting to
>the top and having increased
>odds once they get there.
***Again, I agree 100% if the system is going to be tinkered with that is the way to do it to insure all the faithful with many years and a lot of cash invested don't get screwed. Let's be honest though and realize that even if that change was made that there are still so many people in those half dozen top pools that some will still never draw a tag because there just aren't that many tags available for those species.
>All I know is that the
>way the point system isn't
>working now, a hunter that
>hasn't applied in the past
>for some reason (financial, other
>priorities, etc.), those just getting
>into hunting, and the young
>hunters, they're franked with the
>current point system. They will
>likely never be in the
>top point pools, even with
>50 years worth of applying.
***Very true and even if the system was capped right where it's at as you suggest, many of those that aren't in the top few pools will still never draw a license in 50 years of applying!
>With sheep and moose populations dwindling,
>and tag allocations being lower
>and lower, the current system
>is favoring ONLY the long-time
>applicant and dumping on the
>guys just starting out. Further,
>the young hunters in WY,
>MT, NV, AZ, etc. are
>largely screwed under point systems,
>and cant even see a
>faint light at the end
>of the tunnel.
***100% agree on that, always have, and there is no way of changing that and going to a totally random draw to help them out without royally screwing those that are in the top few pools for those species!
>But, in true form, you go
>right to bashing and offer
>up no solutions.
***Duh, the only one I see bashing on this thread is you with that statement, but that's your way every time and you can never seem to get through an entire post without doing that even when many members have asked that you keep things on a civil adult level! I also didn't see the OP asking for a solution to the PP problem, but you know where I've stood on PP systems for years and my thoughts have pretty well always been aligned with yours.
>Unlike you, I actually put some
>thought into how we keep
>people applying and interested in
>sheep and moose. How
>do we encourage those just
>starting out that they may
>have a chance inside 25-30
>years that they'll get to
>the top, while also maintaining
>opportunity for those that have
>applied the longest.
***Ah, more talking down to someone, as is par for the course in your posts. Again, let's be honest and just admit that with the few tags that are issued for sheep and moose each year and the high demand for those tags that there is no way to correct the problem and make it fair to everyone like it would be in a straight random draw. Those that are already in the system and that do have a chance to draw in their lifetime while they can still hunt are most at risk. Life is not fair and what we are talking about may be a good example of that because this will never be resolved as long as the demand is so much greater than the supply! That is exactly why for fairness no state should ever start any type of a PP system because all they are is a money maker and nothing more!
