Point averaging...fair?

BuzzH

BuzzH

Long Time Member
Messages
6,374
Best place to start on this is the start...that would be several years back when "NR's" read...WYOGA to others, wanted to implement a point system for elk, deer, pronghorn. I honestly don't believe that PP for elk, deer, and pronghorn would have ever happened if not for WYOGA.

Wyoming NR's have very little clout to get these types of systems passed. Most residents don't care either way, but really should.

So, the point system was put into place for DEA to create and reward long-time applicants...a way to make things "fair" for everyone.

The one thing that DOES NOT make this fair is point averaging. A guy that started to apply in the beginning, much like jims, drew a top unit along the way. He then starts getting on internet forums and starts looking for NR's to apply with to increase his odds to draw a mid-tier tag.

Its been stated that "most NR's already know where they want to apply with max or close to max". That's just not true, just watch this and other boards when it comes close to application time. Countless NR's asking where they should apply as they, "don't know what to do with their points". Guys like jims, see a golden opportunity at this point. So, now they jump in the draw and average their points to get their second, third tags. Seems harmless enough, except now guys that apply solo or with others with the same point totals, are not drawing tags that they otherwise would have.

It doesn't take long and the mid-tier units are now experiencing point creep. The example I used in the other thread is a perfect example. A 4 point holder, applying solo, or with a party with the same points is being aced out by another 5 party group that has an average point total of 4.2, including one guy that only has 3 points.

Not sure how its fair for a 4 point guy to get aced out of tag because someone else partied with others to bring the total to 4.1.

A perfect example is what TOPGUN wrote, he was able to draw an antelope tag one year earlier than he would have without partying with another. I'm still curious how this is fair to the guy that TOPGUN pushed aside to get another tag in the "unit he likes".

Another thing, that I know for 100% fact happens, is that many people apply their kids, wives, friends, cousins, etc. strictly for using their points. I know, again for 100% fact, that in some cases, a hunter will even apply with a friend using their points, purchase both tags, and their application partner never even hunts the tag. When considering the cost difference between the Special and Regular fees...its not much more to pay for someone elses tag even if they don't ever have any intention of using it.

Before you call BS...again, I know for a fact, it happens/and is continuing to happen. I'm not going to name names, so don't ask.

Many States, like jims resident state of Colorado, recognized the way the point averaging would be abused...so went to a system where the low point holders points are only considered in a party application.

So, the next question asked was, "well, this doesn't impact Residents".

Yeah, maybe not in the short-term, but in the long-term, yes it does.

I put a lot of effort into killing the Resident preference point bill a couple years ago in Wyoming. Matter of fact, I put myself in a place where bridges were burned (some have been rebuilt, others likely never will be), mostly based on EXACTLY what is happening now with NR Preference Points.

In general, the hunting public is in a big fuggin' hurry to pass stuff to make things more "fair" and end up with something that morphs into a system ripe for abuse, and is anything and everything BUT "fair".

The thanks I get/got for pushing the Resident PP bill back, is a bunch of grief from people that just don't get it.

Matter of fact, jims, didn't have any problem getting his .02 cents in regarding the resident pp bill. Which I have no problem with, even though it had no impact on him as a NR. I have thicker skin than damn near anyone and jims is entitled to his opinion and .02 cents.

That leads to the final question of how is all that relevant now? Well, I believe that a PP bill for resident DEP is inevitable. I can also say for 200% fact, I'm done fighting against it when the only gain is a big bunch of grief. When, not if, it happens, I will make sure that point averaging is not an option, for the reasons I already listed.

Further, I'll make sure that point averaging for NR's is also done away with.
 
What about the benefit of accessing wilderness with a resident?? Just sayin. I'm one of those that you mentioned with some points and no idea where to go other than I want to go elk hunting in wyoming.

By the way any suggestions for a younger fella in good shape (short distance shooter) bow or rifle with 7 nr elk points? Prefer October or November & have a nr buddy in the same point set?

Sights would be set on a minimum 280 type of bull
 
Maybe nothing directly. Just a win win to access wilderness areas. I guess a non resident could put in solo and then convince a resident to gain them access. But the deal may be sweetened if you put in together. If there was such a scenario I guess. Maybe I should re-read what point averaging is I guess. Do you see it as a resident and non resident putting in together to draw.... But then not hunt together?
 
Residents don't have PP yet, and further, wouldn't be able to party with a NR even if a PP bill were to pass.

The wilderness guide law was also passed by WYOGA...

Any resident can get a resident guide license (free of charge) to "guide" 2 NR's a year into wilderness.

I've done that several times for friends/family.
 
Since WY copied Oregons point system I'm vary familiar with what you're saying. and you're right , but maybe looking for a problem that doesn't exist to many hunters.

I had every non hunting relative I know put if for tags for the first 10 years and I hunted as if there wasn't a drawing, I loved it. now, it does little good because it takes too many points to draw a decent tag. in any event I had no problem with point averaging because I gained from it, as many did.

Two things about point averaging in OR I'm not sure about in WY, when a NR puts in with a Resident everyone has to go into the NR draw. and points are always rounded down from .50 and up from .51 . these rules make it tougher to beat the system.

The idea of it is good, let a family or bunch of friends hunt together. but you're absolutely right until the points required to draw get high there will be lots of guys gaming the system with success.

















Stay thirsty my friends
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-16-14 AT 08:48PM (MST)[p]I think the answer is that point averaging is abused by a certain few and definitely causes some to lose what could be their tag, to someone with less points.

Bottom line, those things can't happen when a party goes by lowest point holder. In that scenario, the higher point holder choices his fate and is not handed it.

What bothers me the most, is someone thought this up, most likely without considering the consequences and the system gets bastardized.
 
Im trying to have my wife get her hunters safety so I can start buying her points, only difference is I will pay special to get there quicker.
 
BuzzH---I understand completely what you are mentioning. In fact, I believe you missed that fact in my post because I was editing it at the exact time that you made a post commenting on the public school system and my lack of common sense, LOL! I guess the point I'd like to make is that the PP system was pretty much jammed down the throats of NRs and I don't doubt your comments about the WYOGA, it's motives, etc. The fact is that it was instituted to make money for the G&F and it's certainly doing that along with a few other positives. NRs had absolutely nothing to do with putting this system into effect and it was not our fault that this averaging section/system was included in it. People who know how to legally work any system to their advantage will do so just as some are using the PP averaging section to their advantage. Nobody knows how much affect it has on solo hunters not getting a tag and there is no way that will ever be known because it's not being tracked by the G&F and I don't know if it could be. I don't doubt for a minute anything you stated as far as people buying PPs for friends & relatives to use them to some extent. Again, they are just taking advantage of what is probably a flawed system that may or may not last and nobody knows how much it's happening. IMHO I think it should be the NRs that decide how the system that affects them is handled even though we don't have a vote on anything that involves us in any state where we're a NR and never will. As a NR in all but one state we are at the mercy of the other states and do what they place into law or don't go there! Again, IMHO if one person has enough clout to change a system that doesn't involve them like you obviously feel you do, it would be nice if a poll could be taken for NRs to raise any objections or ask that the system stay the same. If that person wants to affect change on the resident side if a PP system is started so this averaging isn't included, that's fine. To threaten or promise all of us NRs that you'll get ours changed like you're doing out on this thread, and that's exactly what you're doing, flat out sucks!!! I know that you champion NRs rights and I would submit that just because you don't like our NR system is no reason for you to try and change it without knowing how many NRs are on your side or how many would be affected. That's my feelings and I hope this thread stays at an adult level, unlike the other that got hijacked.
 
It matters because it's a point system with tags going to max holders first. If I apply with my daughter, I open up a tag for a person with points equal to or above our average. She on the other hand, takes a tag away from a guy with points equal to or below our average. One winner and one loser. If you're on the losing side, it matters for sure.

The can of worms get opened further in a state like OR where you don't pay up front.
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-16-14 AT 09:24PM (MST)[p]"Have to have a hunter's safety card to buy points?"

x xxx xxx xxxxxx xxx xx xxxxx xxx
should I post that?

probably not
 
Buzz, you make some great points. Obviously every point system has it's flaws. I've learned quite a bit over the years about the good, bad, ugly, and beauty of pref/bonus pt systems by researching and applying in several states. Each state is a little different. I don't think there is a such thing as a perfect point system....whether it be bonus or pref pts. However, some draw systems are definitely a lot better and more "fair" than others.

What often upsets hunters/applicants is when things change mid-stream after applicants have applied years and years for tags....especially those that have applied for tags the longest. Obviously max pref/bonus pt applicants have the most to loose. I would expect nonres Wyo applicants with max pts that apply for the toughest units in Wyo to be sad if point averaging disappears. Some max pref pts guys apply and draw units with less than max pref pts with pt averaging. Buzz mentioned that pt averaging puts more pressure on drawing mid-tier units but in all reality it may make it a little easier to draw max pref pt units. I applied with 2 applicants with max pref pts this past year and both seemed very happy with their experience and hunt. If I wouldn't have come along and persuaded them to apply and hunt with me they still would have been applying for max pref pt units. They FINALLY hunted rather than sitting around twiddling their thumbs! Now there are 2 less guys vying for max pref pt units. Buzz is correct that we likely took tags away from someone that normally would have drawn but we also made it a little easier for guys holding out for max pref pt units....so that is another consideration.

If pt averaging is abusing the system I think it would be wise to change...if there is only a small overall impact it may be wise to keep things as they are. I'm not exactly sure how to monitor or figure this out? As mentioned in my original post pt averaging allows nonres friends and family members a means to apply and draw tags together. It would likely take more years to draw the same tags without pt averaging. I imagine a list of pros and cons would be useful...and figuring out exactly what impact pt averaging has on the system?
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-16-14 AT 09:53PM (MST)[p]Topgun,

How many times have I heard you trumpet about "states rights" and the right of the Residents to decide how they distribute and manage THEIR wildlife? Want some quotes?

That seems to suit you, when its to your advantage. When its not, then all of a sudden the NR's should have a say and tell the Residents how and what we should be doing for NR's. As a NR, you have exactly one "right", and that is to be gracious about ANY opportunities that residents allow you to have. Other than that, you have the absolute right to sing the blues in regard to Wyomings wildlife...nothing more, period.

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate NR's hunting and buying Resident licenses here, wayyy more than most other Residents. I go out of my way to thank NR hunters for buying licenses and supporting the GF.

As to your remarks about the system and people using it (and apparently doing the same and defending jims actions)...lame. How well do you like it when 3rd generation welfare bums "game the system to their advantage". Perhaps a better example is how do you like how WYOGA "gamed the system" to exclude you from Wilderness?

Yeah, I don't like those things either...and exactly why I'm being 100% consistent not caring much for one group of NR's kicking other NR's in the crotch by gaming the preference point system.

You have a habit of cherry-picking your agenda and out-rage.

The things I see on these boards, really makes me wonder sometimes why I don't just flat look out for myself more and care less about NR's. It would be one fugg, of a whole lot easier, for me to just jump on board with Wharff and shoot for the 90-10 split for deer/elk/pronghorn and really look out for Residents. A lot of Residents (see tripleBB as a perfect example), would really like to see that happen.

But, I do have a conscience and do know that many of the mouthy NR's on these boards are not in the majority or representative of NR hunters. Most are good guys that just want to hunt here, and for them, I'll continue to do whats right. For those gaming the systems, thanks for nothing, and not giving a chit about your fellow NR hunters.

I'll be the first to admit, and always have, that I don't sugar coat my comments. But, I will also say that its not often anybody has to guess where I stand and why.
 
"The can of worms get opened further in a state like OR where you don't pay up front."

Soon to come in Wyoming: not paying up front to apply in license drawings.
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-16-14 AT 10:14PM (MST)[p]

>"The can of worms get opened
>further in a state like
>OR where you don't pay
>up front."
>
>Soon to come in Wyoming: not
>paying up front to apply
>in license drawings.

You better not do that.
A guy with max points can pimp them out for $xxx/year, never buy a tag, do it every year and gain a point too. It happens right now up here. My daughter could party app her Elk points for close to $1000 from what I see on Ifish.
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-16-14 AT 10:12PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Dec-16-14 AT 10:11?PM (MST)

WapitiBob,

I wish people would think about this chit before they trumpet on about how great point systems are.

I've already seen that too, people willing to pay for other peoples licenses or pay out-right cash for using their points.

Its sad...and some still cant understand why I don't like point systems.

Even more of a mystery to me, is the solution is so darn simple...random draw, no points.
 
Buzz for the most part I'm sure your intentions are good and most of the time I agree with you, but you can't go off on people playing by the rules. I really don't think point averaging effects vary many of us NR hunters at all.


As for your resident program paying up front will stop a lot of it, not allowing people to buy " points only " will stop a lot more of it. but good luck with that, the state will make far more money with less hassle by allowing it and WY is as greedy as they get.
















Stay thirsty my friends
 
Not in the way the drawing works.

WY will figure out how OR makes money on the application fee by offering points only and not paying up front and copy that too. just watch and see.

Unless you prevent it, good luck.










Stay thirsty my friends
 
Yes it is, and I don't have the numbers but I bet it's not that common.

I've never done it, I know a dozen guys who hunt of of state all the time and they've never done it.










Stay thirsty my friends
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-16-14 AT 10:55PM (MST)[p]>Topgun,
>
>How many times have I heard
>you trumpet about "states rights"
>and the right of the
>Residents to decide how they
>distribute and manage THEIR wildlife?
>Want some quotes?

***Don't need any quotes and IMHO this has nothing to do with states rights, so I have no idea why you brought that up!
>
>That seems to suit you, when
>its to your advantage. When
>its not, then all of
>a sudden the NR's should
>have a say and tell
>the Residents how and what
>we should be doing for
>NR's. As a NR, you
>have exactly one "right", and
>that is to be gracious
>about ANY opportunities that residents
>allow you to have. Other
>than that, you have the
>absolute right to sing the
>blues in regard to Wyomings
>wildlife...nothing more, period.

***Your reading comprehension seems to be lacking here, as I'm not telling the citizens of Wyoming how to run their program. I'm telling YOU that Wyoming pushed this PP system on the NRs and it's not our fault YOU don't like the PP party averaging section that only NRs are stuck with. Maybe everyone that's actually involved in it has no problem with it and so far it seems that the consensus is that it possibly has as many positive ramifications as it does negatives. If your opinion differs, that's your right. However, I'm not telling residents what you should be doing for NRs, but rather in this instance what maybe YOU shouldn't be doing when there has been no outcry from NRs to change the system. By going to what you purpose it would seem to really screw the families or friends that want to be sure they can hunt together. If one of those members is only one point short of all the others, your proposal would mean that person either can't go because it would drag them down to his/her PP total or if they applied as a party with that person they may well not get the tag because of just the one PP difference. The present system will obviously screw some solo applicants, but I really wonder how many and maybe the various positive examples already given by members on this thread might outweigh the negatives.
>
>Don't get me wrong, I appreciate
>NR's hunting and buying Resident
>licenses here, wayyy more than
>most other Residents. I go
>out of my way to
>thank NR hunters for buying
>licenses and supporting the GF.

***No doubt about that and it's greatly appreciated!


>As to your remarks about the
>system and people using it
>(and apparently doing the same
>and defending jims actions)...lame. How
>well do you like it
>when 3rd generation welfare bums
>"game the system to their
>advantage". Perhaps a better example
>is how do you like
>how WYOGA "gamed the system"
>to exclude you from Wilderness?

***Don't like it at all, but seeing as how the residents run the state just like every state does, we had no say in it just like you said we have no say over anything else! That doesn't mean it's right, but that's the way it is for every NR in all the states, except the one they live in.


>Yeah, I don't like those things
>either...and exactly why I'm being
>100% consistent not caring much
>for one group of NR's
>kicking other NR's in the
>crotch by gaming the preference
>point system.

***Maybe NRs don't have the same feeling you do about "gaming" the system, as you call it, since it's the system we were dealt, not that we asked for. I haven't heard any NRs saying anything negative about it on this or any other websites I frequent. In fact, the only time I have ever seen this discussed until now is when someone that hasn't read the G&F website asks a specific question as to how it works.

>You have a habit of cherry-picking
>your agenda and out-rage.

***Who doesn't, including yourself?! This thread you started is a perfect example. I think, however, that you are overstating it with the "outrage" comment!


>The things I see on these
>boards, really makes me wonder
>sometimes why I don't just
>flat look out for myself
>more and care less about
>NR's. It would be one
>fugg, of a whole lot
>easier, for me to just
>jump on board with Wharff
>and shoot for the 90-10
>split for deer/elk/pronghorn and really
>look out for Residents. A
>lot of Residents (see tripleBB
>as a perfect example), would
>really like to see that
>happen.

***Yep, and unlike yourself, a lot of them don't have a clue and want everything they can get by restricting the NRs more even though about 80% of the G&F budget comes from NRs. You and I both know that won't happen unless the residents can get the Legislature to pony up a lot of money from the General Fund to replace the loss because they certainly will never pony up the fee increase themselves that it would take.


>But, I do have a conscience
>and do know that many
>of the mouthy NR's on
>these boards are not in
>the majority or representative of
>NR hunters. Most are good
>guys that just want to
>hunt here, and for them,
>I'll continue to do whats
>right. For those gaming the
>systems, thanks for nothing, and
>not giving a chit about
>your fellow NR hunters.

***I hope you are including yourself as a mouthy resident as well!!! Thanks for basically saying none of us are "good guys" just because we don't go along with all of your ideas that are basically your way or the highway!!!

>I'll be the first to admit,
>and always have, that I
>don't sugar coat my comments.
>But, I will also say
>that its not often anybody
>has to guess where I
>stand and why.

***Can't argue with that one, but I think most of us wouldn't call the way you talk down to everyone who disagree with you "sugar coating" it, LOL!
 
WY issues 2 random numbers, OR issues 1

WY is a lowest random number draw, OR issues a number for the computer and goes up from there

Zero point applicants are in the PP draw in WY, in OR they are not

WY averages to 5 decimal places, OR rounds

WY, res/nr are separate draws

WY NR Elk have a set full price tag allotment regardless of the Commissions set tag numbers

WY resident Antelope tags not drawn, carry over to the NR draw


I could go on but they're not the same.
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-16-14 AT 11:00PM (MST)[p]Buzz,

You have some rational reasons for not wanting to have any points and why you do not want to have point averaging. All of that likely makes sense to most of the residents of Wyoming.

My issue is when you are traveling 1000s of miles with family and friends to hunt in Wyoming, having preference points and to a lesser extent point averaging is very valuable and very attractive. It allows me to plan my hunt and travel arrangements and time off of work. Without points I would have to wait until June to know if I drew or not. A lot of non-residents have limited vacation and this would make applying in Wyoming much less attractive.

Part of the reason I continue to buy preference points for different species when I am out of the max points pool is because of averaging. I know what unit I want to draw and how many points it takes, but I will often buy an extra point or two just in case a friend or relative can join me on the hunt.

I have used points averaging a few times myself and I do agree it puts more pressure on the mid-range units and takes some off of the higher preference units and likely takes some pressure off of the 0-1 point units as well. Most of the times these averages were very close, 4 and 3 points, 3 and 1...

I don't feel bad at all with regards to points averaging, that was the rule when points started for non-residents and it is a great tool that allows family and friends to hunt the same unit together. Isn't that a lot of what hunting is about? I play the game in Colorado (lower point rules) and in Utah (point averaging) and I prefer the averaging rules because it allows family and friends to hunt together. I have no idea what to do in Colorado now because all of my friends and family have different a different number of points, it would be nice to average.

Now if what you are saying with Grandma buying points and not using her tag and giving someone else an advantage, then that is a problem and definitely not fair. I am not sure how you can enforce that though, I don't think that happens a ton. With points, the price of your tag is likely close to tripling if you include Grandma's points and her tag. I guess it does have a small benefit...it is basically someone paying double or triple the money for one usable tag. Now if Grandma actually goes on the hunt, then I see no problem at all.

Another benefit to points averaging is taking kids on a decent hunt, I plan to take my sons with me a few times and I hope I have the opportunity to average my points with his so we can go on a decent hunt versus me going solo on a better unit.

Your points are well taken and may be what is best for the residents of the state, but I like how things are and that is what I signed up for. If it is taken away from me, I may try and request a refund:)

Nino
 
>LAST EDITED ON Dec-16-14
>AT 10:12?PM (MST)
>
>LAST EDITED ON Dec-16-14
>AT 10:11?PM (MST)
>
>WapitiBob,
>
>I wish people would think about
>this chit before they trumpet
>on about how great point
>systems are.
>
>I've already seen that too, people
>willing to pay for other
>peoples licenses or pay out-right
>cash for using their points.
>
>
>Its sad...and some still cant understand
>why I don't like point
>systems.
>
>Even more of a mystery to
>me, is the solution is
>so darn simple...random draw, no
>points.

On that we can certainly agree and always have!!!
 
WapitiBob,

You say "A guy with max points can pimp them out for $xxx/year, never buy a tag, do it every year and gain a point too. It happens right now up here. My daughter could party app her Elk points for close to $1000 from what I see on Ifish."

That is definitely false, he can do it one time, but not every year. You can not return your tag in Wyoming, so once you pimp it out, you are done until you gain enough points for a 2nd time. He may get more money than he put into buying points, but I doubt if you take into account the price of the tag that there is much money to be made doing this. He is basically sacrificing a good tag for an average tag for not much money. My 2-cents anyways. The old Utah rule where Grandma could turn her tag back in every year and let Junior draw a tag every year was a big problem (that loophole has been recently closed), but in Wyoming where you can't turn your tag back I don't think it is that big of an issue. As a non-resident I would prefer they keep things as it is. For resident points that are cheaper, I think averaging may be a bad idea.
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-16-14 AT 11:47PM (MST)[p]

I was referencing Oregon where we don't pay up front and therefor have the ability to point average for a fee and we don't have to take the tag.
I had a brain fart though; once you draw here you go back to zero even if you don't buy the tag.
I had AZ and their "tag return" proposal on my mind.
 
Wyoming residents have it good when it comes to hunting. Long seasons, cheap tags, access to wilderness that NR can't without a local or a guide, not a lot to complain about. Residents that know what they are doing have no trouble harvesting trophy animals year after year.

That being said, the point system is not that helpful for non-residents like me that did not get in on the ground floor. The early adopters are pretty much a lock for some premium hunts in the fist 10 years of the point system being launched, come in a year or two late and you are behind the 8 ball forever. Point averaging will not help much. There is always someone around who will work the system to their advantage, but the vast majority are just funneled through like cattle. Such is the case for most preference point systems.

Personally I feel a system like Nevada's is really the best system out there. A chance to draw every year and reward for those who apply year after year.
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-17-14 AT 08:22AM (MST)[p]I'm not going to stoop to the name calling and bickering. Bottom line is, Non-residents don't have a voice. So even an opinion doesn't count.
Watch what you guys say. Slander the wrong one and God Almighty threatens the 10% rule.
 
BFD Bob, the results are the same. 75% to who has the most points, 25% to anyone.

OR has no leftover antelope tags, mute point.

How many zero point holders take tags from high point holders in the point draw ? mute point.

Who cares about the computer process in the end 75% go to the most points the rest go to whoever.

I could go on but it's pointless.

















Stay thirsty my friends
 
A past President and current board member of WYOGA told me not long ago that Wyoming's current draw system for non-res is "the most perfect system there is."

Wonder what he meant by that?
 
Junior,

The idea behind any point system is to reward EACH applicant, as an individual, for applying year after year.

Think about that...before you reply again.

BTW, I did fight and successfully kill the WY resident PP bill, with the help of some other Residents.

I believe that a PP will pass here soon for Residents, and there will NOT be 2 sets of rules regarding a point system. The NR system will change to match the Resident one that is adopted...which is NOT going to have point averaging. You heard it here first, and you can take it to the bank.

As to your comment regarding change, things change all the time. The point game has changed on me in 3-4 states that I apply for. Some have changed 2-3 times, Arizona is going to change AGAIN. New Mexico kicked NR's in the sack twice in the last 5 years. Reduced NR DIY quotas, and completely took NR's out of the sheep draw.

I can complain all I want, but the bottom line is I have nothing to complain about. S. 339 reaffirmed the rights of each State to manage their game for the benefit of Residents, and also to discriminate against NR's.

Some states discriminate more than others...that's called LIFE and the reality of same.

Also, the 10% is not a threat, its going to happen in 2016 with sheep, moose, goat, and bison. Your comment about the "almost a decade and the game changing"...is nothing compared to whats about to happen to those that have been playing the game for "nearly 2 decades". Change happens, adapt or die.

Many more residents want to see the same for DEP.

Instead of crying, you maybe should be thankful that you still have the opportunities that you do in Wyoming. Most surrounding Western States are not this gracious and NR opportunities are much less.

Nino, I understand your position, and appreciate it. The averaging idea for the reasons you stated, isn't neceassarily a bad thing. It still drives point creep, just like you acknowledged.

Wayyy different than someone whooring around websites, to party app with strangers, to gain another point and drive point creep higher. Way different than buying points for friends and family just to use their points. Way different than cash offers for people to party with you to get another tag.

When the bad out-weighs the good with any system...that system is destined for change to correct inequities.

Its 100% about doing whats right for ALL nr's, not just those that choose to apply with a party.
 
jm77,
A past President and current board member of WYOGA told me not long ago that Wyoming's current draw system for non-res is "the most perfect system there is."

Wonder what he meant by that?

That's what I don't get? Anyone could post several scenario with the current draw system that eliminates the outfitter.

Buzz: Its out of my hands. Why should I worry about it? Its going to be what its going to be.

Yes, I am well aware of NM,AZ! Sucks!

BTW: I hate points! AGAIN nothing I can say or do to change them.

Thanks for the agenda.
 
As a non-resident, I see nothing wrong with allowing the point averaging, especially with youth. My wife has given up hunting WY for the time being (she has killed deer in WY) so that she can go on a hunt with our two sons. They'll share points, draw an average unit, and hunt together.

I'm not a fan of points either. It creates a sense of entitlement-- I waited X years so I deserve to shoot X size of animal. If I were you I'd try to get waiting periods instead of points. At a minimum I think there should be a "MAX" number of points allowed-- say 20-25. Any hunt which takes that long to draw should not only be available to those with the most points. There has to be a way for those who come behind to catch up to the head of the line for hunts which take multiple lifetimes to draw.
 
Does anyone know any NR's who are complaining about point averaging in WY? My circle of folks who hunt there is fairly small, but I've never heard a complaint.
 
Junior

Hope Buzz doesn't rip me for getting too far off topic, but I'll explain about "the perfect system"

WYOGA learned long ago how to influence legislation. Everytime they support bills that effect NR it helps the outfitter, but not always the DIY NR. WYOGA knows that the more expensive it is to purchase hunting licenses in Wy for the NR, the higher percentage of clients they have. So here we go:

Support EVERY license fee increase, including last years bill for ONLY increasing NR license fees.

Support and helped pass 40/60 special/ regular price drawing(which will soon be changed to 60/40 special/reg)

Support and pass NR PP along with point averaging. This(averaging) without a doubt takes licenses from DIY hunters. It is widely used by outfitters.

Support and pass the ridiculous NR PP fees

Support and pass the bill making it a crime for a hunter to pay an outfitter who is not licensed.

Last but not least, support and pass THE WILDERNESS GUIDE LAW.

WOW, with a friend like outfitters, what DIY NR needs enemies?
 
>Does anyone know any NR's who
>are complaining about point averaging
>in WY? My circle
>of folks who hunt there
>is fairly small, but I've
>never heard a complaint.

According to Buzz they're jumping out of the woodwork asking him to use "his clout" to get this averaging stopped, LOL! I haven't seen one NR on this thread say they want it changed and have never heard a single NR I've talked with out there or on any websites say anything either. If it happens it happens, because we all know that the NRs have no say on anything in any state but one! I'm out of the PP rat race as of 2015, so they can do whatever they wish on averaging, license fees, etc., as I'll just grin and bear it when it's all out of the NRs hands!
 
As WapitiBob pointed out, "fair" is going to be different in the eyes of where you stand in the point pile.

To me, it really doesn't matter what system each state has in place. My personal preference would be that states get rid of all these elaborate point schemes and just go to random draws. The point systems do nothing more than create benefit to those who are willing/able to invest in the points.

Given I am able and willing to make that investment, I do so, even though I know my financial situation puts me in a better position than some. Not sure that is a good manner in allocating a public resource, such as wildlife/hunting opportunity. Yet, since that is what most the states have decided, and I like to hunt, I will play by the rules established.

I have tons of points in every state. In some states, I have been burning points, as I see very little benefit in amassing points for some glory unit, when I can hunt good units four or five times in the years it takes to draw the glory tag.

In Wyoming, I have been the beneficiary of a friend's points who wanted to go on an elk hunt in a unit he knew I was familiar with. So, my one point got bumped up to three, when we averaged with his five points.

That helped someone who might have competed with him for a tag that required his higher point total. By me bumping up to three, it might have been a detriment to someone else who had two points.

I have a ton of points in CO. Party apps there go into the drawing at a point level equal to the lowest point holder in the party. That's fine, if that is what CO wants. I just play by the rules they set.

I hunt a ton of states, so I get a lot of offers from people to do a party app with them, as they know I might have experience in a unit they are interested in. If we do a party app, it often brings them down and bumps me up. Again, benefiting someone who no longer has to compete with a person holding a higher point total and possibly hurting someone with a lower point total.

I really don't care what any of the states do. I fully expected when I started investing thousands of dollars in points, that things would change along the way. I went into it with a "buyer beware" attitude. That is why I dropped out of the WY moose/goat/sheep system when they cranked up the fee for points. I didn't complain about giving up my seven years of moose and sheep points for me and my son. I wish it didn't happen, but that is part of the risk associated with playing these point games in various states - the rules when you started are going to change somewhere along the way.

If WY changed their position on point averaging, I would look at it the same way; part of playing the game. Even if WY does not change their rules on point averaging, I don't expect the rules to stay the same forever. Part of the reason why I need to find a place to burn my max WY mule deer points for me and my son.

Which gets me back to my wish that point schemes had never become the norm. Even if that means I would lose benefit of the double digit point totals I have in many states, for many species.

I understand some guys like point systems. I sat on the MT committee that developed our point system. At the time, I was probably 15 years the junior of any person on that committee. When I advocated for holding some tags out of the point system and putting those in random draw that would offer some hope to new hunters, it became apparent that the gray hair/no hair crowd thought such idea was blasphemy.

Now that I am in the gray hair phase, I still think the point schemes have limited benefit for hunting, if any benefit at all, especially new/young hunters. I've heard the "We paid our dues" comment a thousand times, and I get it. But, at what point are point schemes nothing more than slanting the table for us old guys who are worried we might die before we draw a sheep tag?

The best thing hunters can do to improve their odds of drawing a sheep tag, or a premium bull tag, or a ..... is to invest more of our time, effort, and money in the conservation work that will put more rams/bulls/bucks on the mountain. The more of those animals in the hills, the better the odds get for everyone, point scheme or no point scheme.

To the question of is "Point averaging fair?" I guess that answer depends upon where you are in the point ladder.

Whatever WY decides, or any state for that matter, is fine by me. I am allowed to hunt as a non-resident at the privilege of the resident and their tolerance for sharing the resource with non-residents, so I am happy for whatever opportunity is provided, point schemes or no point schemes.

"Hunt when you can - You're gonna' run out of health before you run out of money!"
 
topgun,

How many NR's knew, prior to this, what was going on with point averaging?

I reckon some eyes have been opened, precisely the intent of this thread.
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-17-14 AT 01:26PM (MST)[p]jm77, no worries on the "hi-jack"...I have skin thick enough to know that threads stray from the original topic. I promise I wont hit the alert button.

I believe your post will fall on deaf ears. Seems NR's like taking a beating via wyoga, and scream, "thank you sir, may I have another"...every time they take another lashing.

Then, when residents want to give them a hand up, they scream again.

Gets old and I'm over it, time to look out for DIY Residents FIRST.

I hear good things about the 90/10 split for msgb. I should be able to easily draw 2-3 moose tags before I'm done and likely get a better unit my first go-round.

I like it...

Once that passes, its just a matter of time for the other species.
 
Any drawing/point scheme is an effort to fairly allocate access to finite resources. In that way they are all the same. You wait to have your turn, and that does mean you play the system as best you can according to the rules. Can't fault a guy for doing that.

It's impossible to make everyone happy. The fact that we all can't hunt great areas every year will remain a fact regardless of the system used. I can understand a NR liking a pp system so they can plan. As a resident I like the element of surprise afforded in a random draw. However, I have been very unlucky in the drawing, and I don't apply for incredibly hard to draw areas (if it wasn't for bad luck, I wouldn't have any at all with regard to the draw).

My experience has shown that most NR like the point averaging that Wyoming allows, and this is irrespective of whether or not there is rampant abuse of the system, which I have not seen. Doesn't mean it doesn't exist, it's just what I have seen. In this case the G&F's intent is not to reward the individual, but the group or family that likes to hunt together. There is value in that to a lot of people.

In the end we'll all end up waiting if a LQ tag is what we desire. Fair being a matter of perspective, there will never be a "fair" system . . . The only thing fair is that you will wait.
 
A question I have is how many NR that are purchasing points didn't know about averaging?? Lets hear it I believe most read the rules of the game before they start playing. I purchase points and have since the beginning in Wyoming and I knew about averaging
1-- Knew
0-- didn't know
 
>topgun,
>
>How many NR's knew, prior to
>this, what was going on
>with point averaging?
>
>I reckon some eyes have been
>opened, precisely the intent of
>this thread.


Contrary to what you might think, you're not the only one who knows all about PP averaging and it's positives and negatives, as it's been happening for at least 4 or 5 years now as the program enters its 10th year. There have been quite a few on this thread that stated the positives that have helped them or friends and we don't believe the negatives outweigh them. If the system is changed, we'll live with it just like Randy and all of us have stated since we're on the outside looking in. The system could go away tomorrow and back to the better random only that we had and we'd all be better off just like you, Randy, and I have stated more than once! Now it looks like the residents may go with one and they'll soon find they have made a big mistake, but it's there's to make.
 
It sounds like you're washing your hands of the NR hunter.
I'm sure you have influence, along with others, and I still wonder how much work any resident will put toward making things better for the NR hunter when there are few ways to even thank them for their work.
I'm one who doesn't like the ever-changing rules of the game. For me, THAT'S the down-side of points.
EVERYONE clamors for whatever is best for them, usually, and this is a case where the affected folks (NR hunters) have zero voice.
Thanks for what you've done Buzz. I think you're a friend of the NR hunter regardless of the State.
Zeke
 
Negitive and positive to all states and their systems. However, like stated, changing the game in the middle is not the right thing to do.

Yes averaging may take a tag out of a lesser drew unit, but it also takes that high or max person out of the max pool or higher demand units. The lesser hunter benifits, but the higher point person needs to agree and take the hit also!!!
 
It is fair! As long as it is the same for everyone then who gives a crap! Every year I buy points for myself and like 4 other people! All 4 will hunt eventually, but once I drop my points, then I will go on a hunt with my wife, then we will hunt with my daughter, then my father!

This is how the system was designed and the way it should remain!

Too late to change it now!
 
Was speaking with one of our legislative reps at a Christmas party a few weeks ago. He indicated he heard something was coming for resident pref points again. I advised I'd be a supporter depending on how its written. He indicated the same and stated even if it doesn't pass this year, its not going away and will eventually happen...
 
Without a study does it increase point creep? If someone with 3 points applies with someone with 6 to draw a "4" point unit a year early he is back to zero BUT someone will draw a "6" point unit earlier because he is back to zero without getting a tag in that unit making less competition for that tag. I do know point creep in mid to upper level units in Colorado seem to be greater than the point creep in Wyoming. As a NR all I cian do is play by the rules the residents make
 
I've always known that point averaging existed but I never really understood the "gaming" aspect of it until BuzzH spelled it out. Wow!

I was always happy before PP, but it's too late to say that now.:)

The only species I've applied for in Wyoming are deer and pronghorn. It sounds kind of corny, but I always felt as a NR I had no business drawing a sheep or a moose tag when there are a ton of residents who will never draw. Just my own personal thing though.

Eel

It's written in the good Book that we'll never be asked to take more than we can. Sounds like a good plan, so bring it on!
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-17-14 AT 09:10PM (MST)[p]Topgun we the residences aren't pushing anything down your throat. If you don't like it don't apply pretty simple really.

A resident PP system is a bad idea. Period.
 
>Topgun we the residences aren't pushing
>anything down your throat. If
>you don't like it don't
>apply pretty simple really.
>
>A resident PP system is a
>bad idea. Period.

Same old garbage posts I see you put up most of the time! Why make that post to me when every single NR on this thread appears in agreement with me regarding this system?! I've said more than once that I'll hunt Wyoming every year even if a few things aren't to my liking and I think that's the philosophy of everyone else too from what it sounds in reading all the posts. It sure sounds like threats on here from the OP who thinks this NR PP averaging should be changed and has vowed right out on the threads that he and other residents will get it changed. What would you call that?
 
I was we'll aware of the point averaging. Happening in all states that allow it. Life isn't fair, not everyone one gets a trophy.

Rich
 
>For gods sake who made buzz
>the new messiah? Reminds
>me of Obama.
>
>"Go hunt for meat at Walmart."
>
He did. By getting involved. When you are one of very few that actually reach out to the decision makers, express a coherent argument, have facts to back up your argument, get involved with the political process and participate with conservation efforts then you garner some stroke with the decision makers.

Feel free to disagree with him all you want, I do on this matter. But what is not in disagreement is that he gets involved and has passion for his point of view. I have reached out to the legislature on this matter and others involving hunting and fishing in Wyoming, but I sure as he** do not have them calling me to ask what I think. He obviously has more stroke than I do.

I happen to think point averaging is just another way in a long line of ways that the system can be used to your advantage. Personally I think the whole PP system is, whether it be for residents or NR's, is making things worse and a bad idea for all.
 
This might be a case where we (you residents) clamor to get the points averaging rules changed because of a few (damn few) isolated situations where some guy like jims "gamed" the system.

I'm sure "gaming" the system happens. Sometimes it happens legitimately and at other times it happens through devious means but one thing is certain. Any time points are averaged, someone's points are REDUCED to help the group. This allows other applicants in the same pool (or lower pool) to draw the tag when they wouldn't have otherwise. Points are a win/lose all the way around regardless of the system.

This rules change would be just like every other rules change. Someone will be helped in some minuet manner and someone will be hurt. Simple as that!

Zeke
 
mulecreek---There is no doubt that what you stated in your first paragraph is more than true. For that I applaud him and have always been one of the first to offer my congrats for all the effort he puts into conservation, etc. The recent award he received was more that well deserved! The reason this rubs us NRs the wrong way and probably why Tagsoup made his comment is that just like any other NR issue, we have no say in the matter. I, and all the rest of us, can contact the Wyoming Legislators (I often do)on things, but since we don't vote to keep them in Office I doubt that it really matters to them. What does matter is a person like BuzzH who does get involved and who Legislators listen to. In this PP matter we're discussing here, it would sure be nice if for once when it appears the vast majority of us agree that what we were stuck with is not being abused to any great extent that he would take that into consideration, rather than just do what he thinks when it doesn't even involve him as a resident. I would hope that our NR system stays the same until a PP system is instituted for residents whenever that happens. Then if what BuzzH and jm77 are saying is definitely coming and will change the way our NR averaging system is set up, I have no problem in making both systems identical. Anyway, that's my take on this matter even though I won't be in the PP race any longer when I burn my PPs in 2015 and why I agree with your last sentence 100%!

Again I thank BuzzH and jm77, as well, for all they do and will live with what the state decides on any issue involving the NR because we have no other choice unless we want to stay home. That won't happen in my case until I can't physically do the western hunts any longer and I hope that is a long way off yet.
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-18-14 AT 09:40AM (MST)[p]>Residents don't have PP yet, and
>further, wouldn't be able to
>party with a NR even
>if a PP bill were
>to pass.
>
>The wilderness guide law was also
>passed by WYOGA...
>
>Any resident can get a resident
>guide license (free of charge)
>to "guide" 2 NR's a
>year into wilderness.
>
>I've done that several times for
>friends/family.

I didn't know that. Boy you can really learn something on these boards. Now to find a Resident.
 
Why do the systems have to be identical for residents and non-residents?

I think in the case of point averaging there is a lot more room for abuse with respect to residents than there is for non-residents and there are more advantages for non-residents than residents. It would be easier for residents to abuse the system because it is likely the cost of points and the costs of the license would be less and they could more easily "sell" their points. The current system allows non-residents the advantage of planning their out of state hunts with more confidence and allows for groups to hunt together easier.

Why do they have to be the same? Is there a plan to go to a Colorado sort of draw where it would be necessary to have them the same?
 
Good points nripepi!
Financially and logistically it would be SO easy for the residents to "abuse" the system while I've never heard of "abuse" from NR's. Use: yes abuse: no
Even with the potential for abuse by the residents, I suspect it would be very isolated regardless of a few "sighting" by a few vocal posters.
Zeke
 
One reason I could see why they should be the same is that at some point after PP are implemented for Residents some one will get the burr under their saddle that the system is not "fair" for residents since they don't get to average points but NR's do. They would then push an agenda to get points averaged for residents or possibly not averaged for NR's and then some other person would start screaming that it is not "fair" to change the rules after the game has started. I can imagine they would say they have invested substantial money in getting points for their wives, kids, uncles, aunts, friends, etc. and that the dirty rotten residents of Wyo are crapping all over them after years or dedication and investment in Wyoming wildlife.

Sounds crazy that something like that would happen but maybe, just maybe, it could. ;)
 
IMHO these are just more reasons not to have any PP system and only have a random draw one with possibly a waiting period of one or two years before a person that draws could apply for the same unit again.
 
Mulecreek has it right...someone that thinks pro-actively, very nice!!!

Of course there is also the fact that at least a handful of guys on this board, from Wyoming, went to battle (not on the same side) of the Resident PP bill.

There was a lot of heated discussion and legitimate arguments from both sides of it.

Eyes were opened on both sides and I don't believe a single issue regarding the ramifications of PP systems were left on the table.

I had my list, in hand, of Resident friends that I would be buying points for if something in the bill wasn't changed to stop point averaging.

Myself and a few others aren't forced to guess on these issues, we live them.
 
>
>I had my list, in hand,
>of Resident friends that I
>would be buying points for
>if something in the bill
>wasn't changed to stop point
>averaging.
>

Buzz, come on man. How long could that list be? LOL

I can see why some/most residents don't want averaging. It would be so easy to abuse because of proximity and money. Tags and points are so cheap.

I'll be happy (well, not happy but the residents care little about what I would like) to live with whatever Wyoming decides.

Good luck to all,
Zeke
 
I haven't had time to read every response in this thread so perhaps it has already been pointed out:

Sure, when two people go together on an application and their points are averaged, then one person gets a benefit and jumps ahead and potentially knocks another applicant out of a tag. BUT the other person in the party application has had his points averaged down...so he gets a unit that takes less points than he has accumulated over the years....which results in a tag in a different unit becoming available for a different applicant. Hope that makes sense.

I'll give you an example:

Say 2 hunters want to go together and combine points. One has 8 point, the other 0. Their average is 4. So they can draw a unit the takes 4 or less points. The guy that had 8 would have normally been trying for a unit that takes closer to 8 points (because why would someone use more points on a unit that what it takes - I know it happens but still...). So those units that take approximately 8 points to draw, guess what...that guy that burned his points on a party application in a unit that takes 4...he just opened up a tag for someone else in unit(s) that take 8 points. So someone has benefited here too.


So yes, someone may get screwed with the points averaging, but someone can also benefit.

With all that said, personally I think its a small issue in the grand scheme of things. There is one well known person here on MonsterMuleys I suspect uses the points averaging to his advantage regularly. But to be honest, more power to him to be smart and play the game.
 
Zeke,

It was a list to prove a point...10 friends, a hundred peso's a year, and you're in high cotton.
 
>Zeke,
>
>It was a list to prove
>a point...10 friends, a hundred
>peso's a year, and you're
>in high cotton.

I knew you'd see my humor.
Thanks Buzz
 
Zeke,

Oh yeah, I got a laugh out of your post.

Trouble is, most of my buddies probably had me on THEIR preference point list...bastages.
 
huntfishall1---Yes, your concept has been thoroughly discussed on this thread and all the NRs have come to the same conclusion that you have. Hey, point out the well known member that is abusing the averaging system to his advantage regularly and we'll burn him at the stake, LOL!
 
Buzz pointed out point averaging to me and then stomped off, not even willing to hear my reply.

It so happens that it(averaging) was the first in a long list of things that Buzz and I agree on!
 
I dont know for sure that person is using "averaging" to his benefit, so its just a suspicion. It could be luck (random draw for NR offers slight chance at tag), or I could just have it wrong. With that in mind I'm not going to call him out. Besides, I think its a smart way to do it, and IMHO overall not a major issue when compared to some of the other concerns with hunting and tags these days.
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-18-14 AT 04:17PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Dec-18-14 AT 04:13?PM (MST)

After reading most of the posts on this subject and having taken advantage of this to draw a couple tags this past year I could likely go either way on this subject. On one side I had a fantastic experience applying and hunting with a couple nonres hunters that are now life-long friends. They had the benefit of me researching, scouting, and helping them out on their hunt in units they normally had very little experience with. On the other hand without pt averaging I could likely still draw low pref pt quality tags fairly easily that are often overlooked by many (which I've done for the past 40+ years). Without pt averaging there is the likelihood that it takes longer for applicants that apply together to draw tags. Thus, many hunters would be applying rather than hunting...which has benefited me over the years drawing lessor known units that I apply and draw alone on a fairly regular basis.

2 of the guys I hunted with this year burned max pref pts and now we all are back to 0 pref pts. Some may not know but I also burned a bunch of pref pts when I applied and drew tags with my max pref pt buddies this year. I actually had close to max pref pts for both elk and antelope. If the 3 of us wouldn't have drawn tags we likely would have been standing in line applying for higher pref pts units. I can see how point averaging likely puts more pressure on mid-tier tags and opens up "little better" draw odds for those tried and true applicants with max pref pts to draw. The turn over of max pref pts units is generally so low it may still take 1 to 4 lifetimes to draw the highest demand tags. Is this a good or bad thing....I imagine everyone has their own opinion.

If you asked the guys that I hunted with this year if it was worth burning all their pref pts and accompanying me on their hunts..I think all of them were pretty excited after our wild adventures. It was a win-win situation for all of us. I know quite a few nonres hunters that have burned their max pref pts....spun their wheels trying to figure out where to apply...and how, when, where, to hunt, how to field judge, what clothes to wear, what equipment to bring, how to bone and pack out a 400 lb bull, how to survive 20 to 50 mph Wyo winds, etc...and ate tag soup! I have a feeling the majority of nonres that use pt averaging are friends and family members.

I'm not exactly sure who some are eluding to that is abusing the pt averaging system. Unfortunately there are likely a handful of individuals that abuse the system by applying their entire family or friends for tags to gain pref pt advantage....or illegally selling pref pts (never heard of this before but it is possible)?

As mentioned many times in these posts...it certainly is nice that nonres currently have the pt averaging option and have a better chance once they do draw tags to travel and hunt together. On the other hand point averaging likely puts more pressure on units that take less than max pref pts to draw.
 
huntfishall1---What kind of units is this guy hunting routinely to give you any suspicion that he's using averaging? The reason I ask is that he could do it every year with one person who had max points, but that would bring them down to just a mid-tier level unit. To get near a top level unit he would have to get a number of people with max PPs to party together with him to raise that average up towards the top. The only other way to do it would be getting very lucky in the random draw just as you mentioned. As an example, 9 PPs that is the max this coming year would do the following if that person had 0 PPs: partying with one person would give them 4.5; partying with two that had max would give them 6.0; partying with three that had max would give them 6.75. If all are satisfied with dropping down to those levels as a party it would do exactly what jims wants to do this year, but would not get them near the top units while dropping them all to zero the following year. Just as everyone is saying, that would allow others at max to have a better chance at drawing, but could also eliminate one or more applicants at the point level the party entered at and definitely anyone with lesser PPs.
 
jm77 said, "Buzz pointed out point averaging to me and then stomped off, not even willing to hear my reply."

Ha! Good times had by all...laffin'.

I don't think I stomped off, I think I ran off, to get a chance to saw on a State Senator...
 
>jm77 said, "Buzz pointed out point
>averaging to me and then
>stomped off, not even willing
>to hear my reply."
>
>Ha! Good times had by all...laffin'.
>
>
>I don't think I stomped off,
>I think I ran off,
>to get a chance to
>saw on a State Senator...
>


So did you cut that Senator in half, as from that comment it doesn't sound like he would have been a happy camper when you got done with him, LOL?!
 
I have not read every post so maybe this point has been pointed out. Buzz has a problem with someone with less points averaging with someone with more pts and jumping ahead of a person and taking his tag. What he forgets is that the guy with the most pts just opened up a tag for someone else that takes more pts to draw.

"Go hunt for meat at Walmart."
 
>I have not read every post
>so maybe this point has
>been pointed out. Buzz
>has a problem with someone
>with less points averaging with
>someone with more pts and
>jumping ahead of a person
>and taking his tag.
>What he forgets is that
>the guy with the most
>pts just opened up a
>tag for someone else that
>takes more pts to draw.
>
>
>"Go hunt for meat at Walmart."
>
Yep, we discussed that at length and most all the NRs felt the system, although maybe flawed, is working well enough to leave it alone at least until a resident bill passes and it would be changed to match that one that will have the party use the lowest point person as their PP level to enter the draw.
 
The biggest complaint I hear from all you guys about PP is how unfair they are to those with less than max pts. All the crying about point creep and such. Seems to me point averaging puts the screws to those same guys(except the ones in the party)

But as long as it works for you, like point averaging, who gives a hoot. Right?

And I'm still trying to understand why families and friends who want to party and hunt together, need to be able to point average?
Just apply together until you draw. Am I missing something?
 
>http://www.monstermuleys.info/cgi-b..._thread&om=6345&forum=DCForumID49&archive=yes
>
>It doesn't happen? This is
>from Oregon, but wyoming would
>work the same.
>
>Like many things, point averaging was
>created for a good reason,
>but people have figured out
>how to abuse it.
>
>And anyone who started buying points
>thinking the system could never
>change needs to come back
>to reality.

Nobody said it didn't happen and that guy in the link was only asking for a person with 17 points to go in with him with his 15 points. I think we're talking more about a person with none or only a couple PPs wants to ride the coattails of a person with max or near max PPs to go way up the ladder in the draw.
 
I wish I could buy Buzzy for what he is worth and then sell him for what he thinks he's worth. LOL. Dude, You really need to take a chill pill before you get on here and tell every one how stupid they are and how smart you are.

I like the NR PP system the way it is. I like being able to know for certain that my family can hunt together. This year was my 12 year old daughters first year to hunt. Of course she had zero points, but her mom and sister each had 2 PP for antelope. I group applied them and they averaged 1.33 PP. I then applied them for a unit we like to hunt that I knew they were guaranteed to draw because it historically takes < 1 point. In fact, my 12 year old may have drawn the tag on here own as there is a small number that draws with zero points. So realistically all I did was just ensure they hunted together and gave the WYO G&F more money because we used way more points than we needed.

I talked with several people I work with today ( all NR hunters) and they all like the way that WY does their points.

Ok Buzz, Tell me how stupid I am.
 
The PP is all about making money and so is the Nonresident Special. It's to keep Nonresidents stuck in the system (like gambling). They change the system to their liking if it benefits them. You know the old saying, "You play you pay"? I wouldn't go the PP if I was a resident.
 
This is all about revenue loss more than abusing the system.

How many apps does averaging keep out of the special side?
 
I don't even know why this is being discussed. I think it would be stupid to NOT average points. Doing it that way is as fair as a point system can be. I'd rather not have a point system at all, but if there's a point system points NEED to be averaged.
 
Go look at the odds Buzz, way better units for 1.33 points than for 0, especially for a 12-year old. 0 point units are really tough right now in Wyoming, overcrowded with little public.

This was a great fair example of point averaging where a family got to hunt together and you totally dismissed it. In this scenario, it actually helped point creep. They used 4 points instead of the 3 required that was needed to 100% draw the tag!

You still haven't told me why the systems need to be the same for residents and nonresidents?
 
"You still haven't told me why the systems need to be the same for residents and nonresidents?"


Because BuzzH thinks it does even though it appears not one NR on this thread wants it changed and it's not even a system we asked for or have any say in, don't ya know!
 
Blah Blah Blah. Buzz, do you really think anyone cares what you think about NR points averaging or anything else relating to NR hunting in WY?

Time to get off the high horse. You love the revenue that we bring in, but continue to spout off about limiting NR tag numbers and ridding our point averaging.

Keep typing if it makes you feel better, but the fact of the matter is, nobody really cares what your opinion is.

Carry on.
 
Here's one non-resident that would like to see all states get rid of point systems......

BOHNTR )))---------->
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-20-14 AT 10:51AM (MST)[p]One thing I know about NR issues, is that if I was a NR I'd be paying close attention to what Buzz says, no matter how harsh his words.

And I love how you all abandon one of the few residents that sticks up for the NR, just because he tells it like it is and you don't like it. There is not a single thing on this post that I can recall Buzz is wrong about point averaging.

Point averaging is part of what is wrong about PP, but as long as it works for you, it's ok. I can assure you all, if and when PP happens with residents there will be no point averaging.

It sucks, I know, to be a NR and not have a say in a state you like to hunt. But then again, I guess this forum is a good place to vent all your frustrations, when you can't do a thing about it. Get ready for 90/10, it's coming whether you like it or not.
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-20-14 AT 11:35AM (MST)[p]>One thing I know about NR
>issues, is that if I
>was a NR I'd be
>paying close attention to what
>Buzz says, no matter how
>harsh his words.

***Harsh words my rear! One can get their point across with out being a total ahole like his constant talking down to people and now making his vows and threats on this thread like he did about something that right now doesn't even involve him or other residents! I've backed him through thick and thin on about anything he's ever spoken about because of his great knowledge on most issues. However, he's cutting his own throat for much more backing from me or most others the way he's been on this thread, as well as attacking Michael on his great bull. The state stuck us with this PP system and wherever we can use it to our advantage like people have mentioned it should be left alone. If the residents make the big mistake of starting one for themselves and eliminate averaging such that our NR system is changed to match it is one thing, but until that happens IMHO we should be left alone when you see the unanimous vote by NRs on this thread. Life isn't fair and no PP system will ever be no matter how it's designed. That's why they should have never been started anywhere and random systems should be the norm.


>And I love how you all
>abandon one of the few
>residents that sticks up for
>the NR, just because he
>tells it like it is
>and you don't like it.
>There is not a single
>thing on this post that
>I can recall Buzz is
>wrong about point averaging.

***Nobody is arguing that's he's right about some people possibly getting shafted now and then by averaging, as you should see from all the comments being made. We don't feel the small abuses that might happen outweigh the positives in the case of NRs that were pointed out here. There is no reason that the NR system should be identical to a resident one if one is instituted. If BuzzH wants to help the NRs, IMHO he'll listen to us and let us alone on something that we can't vote on and are happy with, rather than sticking it to us just because he can!

>Point averaging is part of what
>is wrong about PP, but
>as long as it works
>for you, it's ok. I
>can assure you all, if
>and when PP happens with
>residents there will be no
>point averaging.

***We got that and all you're doing is pouring gas on the fire when presently this doesn't involve you, BuzzH, or any other resident! IMHO the averaging system was put in for the reasons people are stating here to help the G&F so they can get more NRs out there when they know they can get a tag as a group. Please take care of your residents and leave the NRs alone that are carrying 80% of your G&F budget and should have a little voice in something that only involves them!

> It sucks, I know, to
>be a NR and not
>have a say in a
>state you like to hunt.
>But then again, I guess
>this forum is a good
>place to vent all your
>frustrations, when you can't do
>a thing about it. Get
>ready for 90/10, it's coming
>whether you like it or
>not.

***That, Sir, sounds like it could have been made by BuzzH himself! Now you have to bring up the 90/10 split and throw that in our face too! I thought you were just a little above that jm77, but I guess not!



***These are my comments to your post
 
Wow Topgun,

You'd be best to just leave it alone. I thought you knew what you were talking about, but I see when you get upset, better judgement leaves.

First and biggest mistake you made is saying NR carry 80% of the G&F budget. Where the heck did you get that???? Try roughly 36% of the budget. Maybe you were thinking 70% of license related revenue??

Second, point averaging is to sell more NR licenses? Total stretch there. A party is a party. Average or lowest point number, either way same tag numbers.

Third, say it all you want, whoever you are, where ever you come from, after the first year of a random draw, random is no longer "fair", that is unless your thinking precludes you from knowing there is another year after Dec 31st. And another one after that and so on...

Really doesn't matter though, I'm glad Wyo shares it's incredible outdoors with NR. I choose to live here, therefore my voice is heard in Cheyenne. Now that's really cool!
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-20-14 AT 05:16PM (MST)[p]>Wow Topgun,
>
>You'd be best to just leave
>it alone. I thought you
>knew what you were talking
>about, but I see when
>you get upset, better judgement
>leaves.

***Better judgment doesn't leave, but yes, all of us NRs are upset with all this BS!
>
>First and biggest mistake you made
>is saying NR carry 80%
>of the G&F budget. Where
>the heck did you get
>that???? Try roughly 36% of
>the budget. Maybe you were
>thinking 70% of license related
>revenue??

***Yes, 80% of the overall G&F budget is derived from licenses and related fees, of which we pay a huge chunk and that is what I meant, but just didn't complete my thought properly because I was in a hurry to go out with my ML, as we only have 2 days left in our season up here. Anyway, you know we keep the G&F afloat and there is no doubt about that!

>Second, point averaging is to sell
>more NR licenses? Total stretch
>there. A party is a
>party. Average or lowest point
>number, either way same tag
>numbers.

***Not a stretch at all! If a party wants to hunt and they can't assure themselves that all will go like the averaging allows, then it's very possible they won't put in or maybe only one might who has a point total that will assure a tag. Therefore, the G&F loses the money from those who don't apply. I'm very surprised you can't figure that out after so many here stated that's exactly why they prefer averaging!


>Third, say it all you want,
>whoever you are, where ever
>you come from, after the
>first year of a random
>draw, random is no longer
>"fair", that is unless your
>thinking precludes you from knowing
>there is another year after
>Dec 31st. And another one
>after that and so on...

***Say what! Now who's talking down, being a wiseacre, and is making no sense! Every year in a totally random draw each person has the same chance to draw the tag they apply for. Your Laramie buddy has stated that every time "fair" and "draw" discussion happen. The only way they wouldn't is if there was a waiting period for a certain length of time for those who had drawn in a previous year.


Really doesn't matter though, I'm glad
>Wyo shares it's incredible outdoors
>with NR. I choose to
>live here, therefore my voice
>is heard in Cheyenne. Now
>that's really cool!

*** No need for that paragraph either, as we know what the state has to offer and that we have no voice. Rub it in some more why don't you!!! In fact, I call it my second home I'm out there for so long every year! Maybe I should even have a fraction of a vote. That would be really cool,LOL!
 
Agree no points is the best option for everyone, besides more important issues should be on the minds of are government and G&F. And I hope that the rumors I hear are true and changes are coming but wont hold my breath until I see them in place!!
 

Similar threads

R
2025 Mule Deer hunt
Replies
3
Views
439
Bookhead
Bookhead
WillHunt
Youth Antelope question
Replies
1
Views
394
treedagain
treedagain
Snoopdogg
New rule on returning tags.
Replies
19
Views
916
huntindad4
huntindad4

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

45EEB8D1-A938-4126-8FA3-F323E3815894.jpeg
6762p1010353_-_copy.jpg
A Few Good Bucks on First Scouting Trip
Trashy Buck
0FAEDE24-703D-4723-A2DB-F3D5B49C43BC.jpeg
dagger-buck.jpg
3CE4B474-46EC-4FB4-A86C-B8FE79FE660B.jpeg
phonto.jpeg
Lots of Bucks, Couple 180 Type
IMG_1769.jpg
20240812_192600.jpg
IMG_20151116_043958.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