Point averaging...fair?

Topgun said

"***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..."

This is the statement you stand by Mike? Because you're still wrong.

Give up trying to be a legend in your own mind.
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-20-14 AT 09:47PM (MST)[p]>Topgun said
>
>"***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..."
>
>This is the statement you stand
>by Mike? Because you're still
>wrong.
>
>Give up trying to be a
>legend in your own mind.
>

***Okay Mr Expert who's sounding more and more like BuzzH with every post! If I'm wrong, then you better contact the G&F and tell them the same thing! Read the first line of the second paragraph in this article I C/Pd right off the G&F website on their funding issues. Then you can man up and issue an apology, unlike your Laramie buddy who still hasn't apologized to Michael on the bull thread for being wrong about that bull's beam length!


CHEYENNE - On November 9, 2012, the Wyoming Legislature?s Travel, Recreation, Wildlife, and Cultural Resources Committee approved two Wyoming Game and Fish Department (Department) funding bills for consideration during the 2013 general session. The first bill would provide the Department with license fee adjustments. Fee prices were reduced from those initially recommended by the Department, but provided the Wyoming Game and Fish Commission, subject to legislative oversight, the ability to annually index license fees to account for inflation (table of proposed license fees). The second bill would establish raffles for big game and trophy game hunting licenses (proposed big game/trophy game license raffles). If passed by the legislature, both bills would go into effect in 2014.

About 80% of the Department's revenue comes from licenses and other fees paid by hunters and anglers. The most recent license fee increase in Wyoming was in 2008. That increase was intended to carry the Department through 2012; however, through careful financial management and cost cutting measures, including a 3% cut to the fiscal year 2013 budget (see fiscal year 2013 budget cuts); the Department should be able to sustain adequate operating funds through 2014. After that period, if additional revenue is not received, budget cuts of up to 20% will be necessary beginning in 2015. Cuts of that size would significantly impact many wildlife management and outdoor recreational programs currently valued by Wyoming residents and visitors.
 
>***Okay Mr Expert who's sounding more
>and more like BuzzH with
>every post! If I'm wrong,
>then you better contact the
>G&F and tell them the
>same thing! Read the
>first line of the second
>paragraph in this article I
>C/Pd right off the G&F
>website on their funding issues.
> Then you can man
>up and issue an apology,
>unlike your Laramie buddy who
>still hasn't apologized to Michael
>on the bull thread for
>being wrong about that bull's
>beam length!
>
>
>CHEYENNE - On November 9, 2012,
>the Wyoming Legislature?s Travel, Recreation,
>Wildlife, and Cultural Resources Committee
>approved two Wyoming Game and
>Fish Department (Department) funding bills
>for consideration during the 2013
>general session. The first bill
>would provide the Department with
>license fee adjustments. Fee prices
>were reduced from those initially
>recommended by the Department, but
>provided the Wyoming Game and
>Fish Commission, subject to legislative
>oversight, the ability to annually
>index license fees to account
>for inflation (table of proposed
>license fees). The second bill
>would establish raffles for big
>game and trophy game hunting
>licenses (proposed big game/trophy game
>license raffles). If passed by
>the legislature, both bills would
>go into effect in 2014.
>
>
>About 80% of the Department's revenue
>comes from licenses and other
>fees paid by hunters and
>anglers. The most recent license
>fee increase in Wyoming was
>in 2008. That increase was
>intended to carry the Department
>through 2012; however, through careful
>financial management and cost cutting
>measures, including a 3% cut
>to the fiscal year 2013
>budget (see fiscal year 2013
>budget cuts); the Department should
>be able to sustain adequate
>operating funds through 2014. After
>that period, if additional revenue
>is not received, budget cuts
>of up to 20% will
>be necessary beginning in 2015.
>Cuts of that size would
>significantly impact many wildlife management
>and outdoor recreational programs currently
>valued by Wyoming residents and
>visitors.

Nope not right. Do you believe every news article you read? Yeah I bet you do Mike.

Take a stroll through the ACTUAL budget Mike and we'll see who's right on this one. You will also find out, like it matters at all, that all the budget cut hype was total BS and the Dept was no way in danger of going in the red after 2014. The cuts made by the Dept were requested by our governor because he required all state agencies to make an 8% cut.

If you bother to read the ACTUAL budget, you will also find that in 2013, the WY G&F was almost 6 million in the black!!! So tout that press release all you want Mike, but you and it are wrong. I happen to know all what I'm saying to be true, as I have not only seen the budget(which is on the website)but I have heard it straight from the mouth of Director Talbot. But I suppose he's lying too, after all that news article can't be wrong could it?

License sales and fees are not 80% of the total budget. READ IT!
And while you are at it, take up needle point or something, your posts are getting so predictable and boring.
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-21-14 AT 00:42AM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Dec-21-14 AT 00:36?AM (MST)

So I just looked up the 2013 annual report on their website and if you look at page C-8 which is the statement of operations, the total income is around 73million. License sales alone were at 31 million. The actual number from just license sales is 43.3% of all income. If you look at the total actual expenses compared to license income it's closer to 47%. This does not include all of the other funding from items such as preference points, conservation stamps, interest from lifetime stamps holders, application fees, and whatever else you can lump into license sales. Without using the interest from lifetime stamp and license holders, the total income from that compared to the total expenses is 58%. but then again you read it (not sure what you read, it's not the same thing I did, it's not even close to being 36%) and heard all about it from the director so it must be true. Your 6 million in the black is accurate though.
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-21-14 AT 00:52AM (MST)[p]>LAST EDITED ON Dec-21-14
>AT 00:36?AM (MST)
>
>So I just looked up the
>2013 annual report on their
>website and if you look
>at page C-8 which is
>the statement of operations, the
>total income is around 73million.
>License sales alone were at
>31 million. The actual number
>from just license sales is
>43.3% of all income. If
>you look at the total
>actual expenses compared to license
>income it's closer to 47%.
>This does not include all
>of the other funding from
>items such as preference points,
>conservation stamps, interest from lifetime
>stamps holders, application fees, and
>whatever else you can lump
>into license sales, but then
>again you read it (not
>sure what you read, it's
>not the same thing I
>did, it's not even close
>to being 36%) and heard
>all about it from the
>director so it must be
>true. Your 6 million in
>the black is accurate though.
>

dack

This is what I said:
"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??"

the figure 36% was my rough percentage of the NR contribution to the budget. If I said that wrong, my bad.

Guess you're not into the "high road" either...
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-21-14 AT 01:18AM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Dec-21-14 AT 01:17?AM (MST)



jm77,


This is my favorite page in this report, check out page B-1 where license sales for the big game species for nonresidents and residents for 2012 are posted. I can't find anything in the report that shows 2013 in this same type of report as I haven't taken much time to look, but its quite interesting as I would believe that 2013 numbers aren't drastically off from this that much.

Resident total license sales for the big game species, $5,512,077.
Nonresident total license sales for same species, $19,519,771.

Then add in fishing license, fur bearer, raptor and pheasant sales to that as well. These do not appear to be broken down by resident and nonresident. Nonresident anglers seem to mirror the amount of resident anglers in 2012 according to another page in the report so you can't contribute too much to the resident anglers in adding to the total license sales.

You know what is funny? Topgun made an error in his wording, but it sure looks like NR make up a crap ton of the actual license sales.
 
Why is B-1 your favorite part dack?

I've always been told the NR contributed 70-80% of total license sales revenue.
 
Why? Because it shows how much the state relies on nonresidents. Because the only other funding source that is close to the amount nonresidents put into the budget is the Feds. Because all of this talk about preference point manipulation and the inevitable 90/10 split means only one thing. The cost to hunt in Wyoming will be more expensive for both residents and nonresidents but there will be no increase in any service from the fish and game.
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-21-14 AT 08:49AM (MST)[p]I'm done, as all this is now is a waste of time. When I get a retort again that I'm wrong, along with all this other BS, it's obviously a waste of our time responding. That C/P verifying my statement was right off the G&F website put out right from the Department! It is saying exactly what I stated and the only difference is they use the word "revenue" and I used "budget". jm77 is now saying don't believe his own G&F Department and to believe every word he says. All I can say in summary is that everyone knows the NRs are keeping the G&F afloat. When they had to take an 8% cut requested by the Governor like the other Departments it really wasn't right or fair. Other Departments stay afloat through General Fund money, while the G&F Department receives very little and it's legally directed at where it has to be used. jm77 can argue percentages and say one thing or another is off all he wants. The fact is that NR money coming in greatly exceeds that of the residents! However, if the residents are ever stupid enough to do a 50% cut in NR tags on other than the four animals proposed, the residents better be ready for huge resident license fee increases just to support the G&F. WE haven't even talked about the money lost to all others that rely on the NR hunting dollars for their livelihood. It's either that or have another alternate source of funding in place to make up the millions of dollars that would be lost, but that still doesn't replace the other money Wyoming residents will lose. As BuzzH would say: "That is FACT!". The G&F has relied on NR tag money to stay afloat for decades and when tag cuts/sales go down just like the antelope tags did last year there is a huge loss of revenue. Add in inflation, economic slumps, gas prices affecting NR travel, as well as many other factors and it just gets worse.
 
>I'm done, as all this is
>now is a waste of
>time. When I get
>a retort again that I'm
>wrong, along with all this
>other BS, it's obviously a
>waste of our time responding.
> That C/P verifying my
>statement was right off the
>G&F website put out right
>from the Department! It
>is saying exactly what I
>stated and the only difference
>is they use the word
>"revenue" and I used "budget".
> jm77 is now saying
>don't believe his own G&F
>Department and to believe every
>word he says. All
>I can say in summary
>is that everyone knows the
>NRs are keeping the G&F
>afloat. He can argue
>the percentages and say one
>thing or another is off
>all he wants. However,
>if the residents are ever
>stupid enough to do a
>50% cut in NR tags
>on other than the four
>animals proposed, the residents better
>be ready for huge resident
>license fee increases just to
>support the G&F. WE haven't
>even talked about the money
>lost to all others that
>rely on the NR hunting
>dollars for their livelihood. It's
>either that or have another
>alternate source of funding in
>place to make up the
>millions of dollars that would
>be lost, but that still
>doesn't replace the other money
>Wyoming residents will lose.
>As BuzzH would say: "That
>is FACT!". The G&F has
>relied on NR tag money
>to stay afloat for decades
>and when tag cuts/sales go
>down just like the antelope
>tags did last year there
>is a huge loss of
>revenue. Ad in inflation
>and other factors and it
>just gets worse.
+1
 
The bottom line is that Buzz was just pointing out the "flaws" of the PP system. If you have enough friends and family to keep a perpetual number of people buying PP yearly you can hunt mid range units for a long time. Not illegal, but does cloud up the works to a point. Just when you think you might draw, here come a bunch out of the woodwork, lol

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!
 
>JM77,
>
>Why do you care about the
>split? I hear you
>get a landowner elk tag
>every year. True?
>

Landowner elk tag?

What's that got to do with 90/10 moose, sheep, goat & bison?
 
Didn't know there were landowner bison, sheep, moose and goat tags???

Did you find that info on the GF website or a cd-rom?
 
eel---We have all acknowledged that there are flaws in any system, including this one that NRs had no say over. None of us obviously feel that what you're talking about is being done to any large extent, but I could see how it could increase greatly on the resident side with their low license fees and what will probably be a low cost to buy a PP on their side compared to NRs if they get a PP system started.
 
>Didn't know there were landowner bison,
>sheep, moose and goat tags???
>
>
>Did you find that info on
>the GF website or a
>cd-rom?


I'll bet someone saw it in a newspaper article...
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-21-14 AT 11:08AM (MST)[p]It doesn't matter what the GF budget is or who pays what.

When residents decide to take 90% or even 100% of the tags, there isn't jack that the NR's can do about it. If you think you're going to hold tag percentages based on simply the financial side, you're full of chit.

Also Topgun, you may want to start putting the thinking cap on before you state that a 90/10 split is going to cost the GF its budget.

There are multiple ways to address that, without losing much, if any, revenue.

Not to mention that the Governor is about to assign a task force to come up with alternative, permanent, long term funding.

When that happens, be prepared to see a significant reduction in tag quotas going to NR's. This 90/10 split is just the start of what is going to happen...that's the only FACT you need to know. You aren't going to get the pulse of the Resident hunters reading newspaper articles, off the GF website, or your cd rom sitting at your desk in Michigan.

Further, Topgun, I suggest you remember you have 1 mouth and 2 ears, start using them in the correct ratio...

There are lots of facts that jm77 and a handful of other Residents who get involved in these issues have that you aren't even aware of.

Tell me Topgun, when was the last time you sat down across the table from Governor Mead? When was the last time you had a 1-1 discussion with Director Talbott, Director Talbotts Staff, or members of the Legislature and Representatives?

When was the last time you had a WYGF Biologist call you personally to ask you about some Management decisions? When was the last time a Senator or Representative called and asked you about a GF bill? When was the last time the Chairman of the Commission has thanked you for testimony at a Commission meeting?

You're afforded the general information that they allow you and everyone else to have.

Judging by the way you interpret data, as well as posts on these message boards, I know exactly why there is only so much data they release to guys like you.

Just go away Mike, this one is no good for you. All you're accomplishing with your mouth is making things like changing averaging preference points, taking more quota for Residents, etc. easier and easier. You just don't know when to stop.

Congratulations?
 
>It doesn't matter what the GF
>budget is or who pays
>what.

***Really! Is that why every time a budget problem comes up the first thing that seems to go on the table is fee increases for NRs?


>When residents decide to take 90%
>or even 100% of the
>tags, there isn't jack that
>the NR's can do about
>it. If you think you're
>going to hold tag percentages
>based on simply the financial
>side, you're full of chit.

***How many times are you and jm77 going to remind us NRs that all we'll do is support the state and not have any say?! WE GET IT!!! If that's the case on tag percentages, then statements for not including NR deer, elk, and antelope tags should be retracted until you find what will replace those millions of dollars. So far the last few years there's been plenty of talk about how, but nothing has been found and solved the problem. Looks like a genius like yourself with all the pull you have up in Cheyenne would have the G&F millions on the plus side by now, LOL!

>Also Topgun, you may want to
>start putting the thinking cap
>on before you state that
>a 90/10 split is going
>to cost the GF its
>budget.

***Didn't say that at all, but it's a big chunk of their "life support" that would need to be replaced and you dang well know it! That's why all the discussion on how it could be done is still ongoing, as you mentioned!

>There are multiple ways to address
>that, without losing much, if
>any, revenue.

***Sure there are multiple ways and ideas, but until one goes through and takes effect to solve the financing of the Department you of all people know that the Department will rely on NRs to bail them out.


>Not to mention that the Governor
>is about to assign a
>task force to come up
>with alternative, permanent, long term
>funding.

***Great! I'll bet you'll be on it and rightly so! Until that is done and it's in effect, maybe you should be polite and ask for all the help that will be needed to get it accomplished!

>When that happens, be prepared to
>see a significant reduction in
>tag quotas going to NR's.
>This 90/10 split is just
>the start of what is
>going to happen...that's the only
>FACT you need to know.

***Nothing is FACT from you or anyone else until the changes are made and placed into law. Look it up in the dictionary. That IS fact!

>You aren't going to get
>the pulse of the Resident
>hunters reading newspaper articles, off
>the GF website, or your
>cd rom sitting at your
>desk in Michigan.

***Another put down and I hope you get your rocks off doing them because you're an expert at it, LOL! We know the pulse of the residents without doing any of what you mentioned. All we need to see is how much the NRs are paying in Wyoming and any other state where they're a NR and then look at the measily fees the residents pay. Yep, the resident wants everything for almost NOTHING on their part when the Legislature won't even back a few dollars increase per resident license because of their bitching that it's too much, LOL!

>Further, Topgun, I suggest you remember
>you have 1 mouth and
>2 ears, start using them
>in the correct ratio...

***More great wisdom and put downs from the MOUTH of the website, LOL! Hey, before you pass any more of your wisdom on, how about gaining your integrity back, if you had much to begin with, by going onto Michael's bull thread, man up and apologize to him! We've all been waiting, but know it won't happen!

>There are lots of facts that
>jm77 and a handful of
>other Residents who get involved
>in these issues have that
>you aren't even aware of.

***No doubt about that seeing as how you constantly remind us of that along with the fact that the NR has no voice at all in anything anyway!

>Tell me Topgun, when was the
>last time you sat down
>across the table from Governor
>Mead? When was the last
>time you had a 1-1
>discussion with Director Talbott, Director
>Talbotts Staff, or members
>of the Legislature and Representatives?

***What a Narcissist! If your head gets any bigger it's going to explode!!!


>When was the last time you
>had a WYGF Biologist call
>you personally to ask you
>about some Management decisions? When
>was the last time a
>Senator or Representative called and
>asked you about a GF
>bill? When was the last
>time the Chairman of the
>Commission has thanked you for
>testimony at a Commission meeting?

***See above comment on Narcissist definition!

>You're afforded the general information that
>they allow you and everyone
>else to have.

***Does that also include you or are you now the Department Director with all that information?

>Judging by the way you interpret
>data, as well as posts
>on these message boards, I
>know exactly why there is
>only so much data they
>release to guys like you.

***It's guys like me that support you and your cheap resident licensing structure regardless of what information they offer up!

>Just go away Mike, this one
>is no good for you.
>All you're accomplishing with your
>mouth is making things like
>changing averaging preference points, taking
>more quota for Residents, etc.
>easier and easier. You just
>don't know when to stop.

***BS and you know it! As long as you keep up with your know it all crap, talking down to others, and making like you're the only one anywhere that knows anything, which is exactly what you do every time you open your mouth, I'll be in your face!!!
 
topgun,

Changing point averaging is not going to take a law or the legislature...

I've seen regulations change from the input of ONE person.
 
JM77,

You're correct, it has nothing to do with splits for Mtn goat, bison, and moose. Why are you ducking the question? It must be true or you would have denied it immediately.
 
>topgun,
>
>Changing point averaging is not going
>to take a law or
>the legislature...
>
>I've seen regulations change from the
>input of ONE person.
That One person isn't you Buzz,I hope some like the Governor of Wyoming is reading your overbearing B.S. on how it's gonna be.
 
264mag,

News Flash!!!

The Governor of Wyoming doesn't set regulation (hint).

Just sayin'....

BTW, You're welcome, in advance.
 
Possibly he figures it's non of your business and being non transferable doesn't affect anybody but his immediate family.
 
Thank you Bob, whether you and I agree on an issue or not, I consider you a 'straight shooter'.

Southpaw

I considered saying just what Bob said and adding that you got a lot of balls asking me that question, but usually I won't dignify a personal question with an answer to someone like you that hides their identity.

I don't hide mine, knowing what I say on here, I am accountable for. But ask yourself these questions:

Why would this guy fight for PP if he gets a landowner tag?

Why would this guy get into the fray to change license allocations if he gets a landowner tag?

Why do I hide behind the name "Southpawshooter" and ask people 'ballzy" questions that are none of my business?
 
I see so much point creep in WY averaging does not help. I have someone with max points I can apply with me - and for good hunts it does no good. Even in 5 years it still will not likely get me drawn. I have 4 points now.
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-21-14 AT 08:29PM (MST)[p]77,

You keep saying you speak for a majority of WY residents when it comes to residents wanting preference points and reduced NR allocations, but yet you don't play the game like the rest of us on at least 1/3 of the species. I don't find it a personal question. It has to be public record as it is a public resource, which takes away from allocations. Just thought I would skip asking the G&F for the info and ask you. Besides, if you are going to speak for the majority all WY hunters shouldn't there be a full disclosure that you don't play like the rest of us?

I don't want to assume anything. So, why do you fight for reduced allocations and preference points?

Buzz,

Why does it bother you that people have handles on this site? Keep guessing....
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-21-14 AT 09:16PM (MST)[p]Topgun, I believe you are right.


DSM-5 criteria for narcissistic personality disorder include these features:

Having an exaggerated sense of self-importance
Expecting to be recognized as superior even without achievements that warrant it
Exaggerating your achievements and talents
Being preoccupied with fantasies about success, power, brilliance
Believing that you are superior and can only be understood by or associate with equally special people
Requiring constant admiration
Having a sense of entitlement
Expecting special favors and unquestioning compliance with your expectations
Taking advantage of others to get what you want
Having an inability or unwillingness to recognize the needs and feelings of others
Being envious of others and believing others envy you
Behaving in an arrogant or haughty manner
Doesn't know what a 61" main beam looks like
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-21-14 AT 10:02PM (MST)[p]>Flopgun,
>
>This is a thread about point
>averaging, stick to the topic.
>


Answer the question on the thread jims just put up!!!!!!
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-21-14 AT 10:01PM (MST)[p]>Topgun, I believe you are right.

>DSM-5 criteria for narcissistic personality disorder
>include these features:
>
>Having an exaggerated sense of self-importance
>
>Expecting to be recognized as superior
>even without achievements that warrant
>it
>Exaggerating your achievements and talents
>Being preoccupied with fantasies about success,
>power, brilliance
>Believing that you are superior and
>can only be understood by
>or associate with equally special
>people
>Requiring constant admiration
>Having a sense of entitlement
>Expecting special favors and unquestioning compliance
>with your expectations
>Taking advantage of others to get
>what you want
>Having an inability or unwillingness to
>recognize the needs and feelings
>of others
>Being envious of others and believing
>others envy you
>Behaving in an arrogant or haughty
>manner
>Doesn't know what a 61" main
>beam looks like

LOL! I especially like that last one you added on yourself! The next dictionary that comes out should have his picture next to the word!!! Oops, I think we're both off his topic again and will be getting another scolding, LOL!
 

Similar threads

WillHunt
Youth Antelope question
Replies
1
Views
354
treedagain
treedagain
Snoopdogg
New rule on returning tags.
Replies
19
Views
753
huntindad4
huntindad4

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

IMG_0064 copy.jpg
Winter Range Monster Muley
IMG_0059 copy.jpg
36AEA201-D5B3-4080-9779-F043E01892C3.jpeg
IMG_0669 copy.jpg
First big buck
IMG_0672 copy copy.jpg
More High Country Bucks
Screenshot_20210818-194108_Gallery.jpg
B6C5DDF1-2C11-48E6-ACE4-3E12D6CBDA00.jpeg
Image from iOS (2).jpg
5400755D-DAD6-4BB9-8891-2CDD5B6D3897.jpeg

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