Proposed WY License Fee Increases

Looks like a good synopsis of the proposal BuzzH, but I think a lot of people would have a problem with their PPs going back to zero if they get a second or third choice tag. I know there have been rumors that G&F has been thinking about doing that and they probably figure there will be a real uproar if they change the system after starting it the way it still is. I will be buying leftover tags for the most part after I use my PPs for deer that now stands at 4 and I'm going to start applying for a unit with them this year.
 
It would not get another dime out of me... I either hunt the unit I want or none at all. I especially would not touch the PP back to 0 at all otherwise you will take all the people with any points out of the system. I really do not see where buying a second choice would help me? I either hunt the units I want or will wait until I can. If I really want to hunt WY I will get a left over....

I however do not speak for all others. I am dedicated to points and the units I want are going to be max points for several years...

I already feel trapped by the points system, adding in the point to 0 for a second choice hunt will only make it worse.
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-20-12 AT 09:08PM (MST)[p]elk96/topgun,

You wouldnt have to...this proposal would NOT apply to the preference point draw, only the random.

The only way your points would go to zero is if you were drawn in the random draw.
 
unfortunately the point system is a trap of sorts. Once you have one point your only option is to continue to compete, many times futily in the pref point draw
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-20-12 AT 09:43PM (MST)[p]You're losing me here BuzzH! In one post you have stated in bold: "I'd strongly recommend that if an applicant draws any of their 3 choices under this proposal, their points go to zero." Now in your last post you have stated: "You wouldnt have to...this proposal would NOT apply to the preference point draw, only the random. The only way your points would go to zero is if you were drawn in the random draw."

If the PP draw is separate and none are used in this random draw proposal he's talking about for a second and third choice, why are you saying they would go to zero? I understood strang to say in an earlier post that this was one of the favorable things in this proposal in that you have another legitimate shot at a tag without jepoardizing your PPs. It's getting late here in MI and maybe I need to sleep on this and come back tomorrow. Good discussion and I hope we can sort all this out!
 
>LAST EDITED ON Dec-20-12
>AT 05:01?PM (MST)
>
>Got it, thanks. I know where
>you got your numbers.
>
>I still think the reason many
>apply for a second choice
>is because it doesnt cost
>them anything...money or points. It
>will change when theres a
>Jackson-Grant involved and their points
>being gone.
>
>Would it be possible to get
>another draft together thats a
>bit more clear?
>
>I'd maybe have some time to
>put something together and get
>a draft your way.

You could do something like Nevada does, you get five choices and if you draw any of them your points are gone.
 
I see a problem with some of your math. As a resident I put down a 2nd choice for both elk and deer. These are simply for a resident deer and elk general tags. On this proposal I would simply be paying $60.00 more for a tag I can buy down the street. I would guess that a lot of the 2nd choice resident applicants are getting general tags. These are tags they can buy almost anywhere. They put a 2nd choice out of convenience. That convenience is notworth the extra money ($60.00 in my case). I like the idea of finding new funding sources without conservation tags.
 
Gunner, the random draw is still a 1st choice draw. By allowing someone (those ahead of you) to draw their 2nd or 3rd choice before they get to your number to see what your 1st choice is, they should lose their points.
 
I would bet that is the case with a lot of those resident stats showing they put in for a second choice that was actually for that general tag. I guess I would be in the same boat starting this year as a NR. My plan is to start putting in for an LQ unit as my first choice with my PPs and the Regional tag I usually buy as a leftover as my second choice. I would do that just out of convenience for myself if I don't draw the LQ tag and it will save the G&F money by not having to issue a refund if I don't do it that way. If I started having to pay for that second chance like this proposal wants knowing I can buy it as a leftover for no extra charge, you know what I and everyone else will do. This is exactly why you can't assume any type of percentage on what could be made by this proposal and why it may not be feasible.
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-21-12 AT 08:41AM (MST)[p]
Buzz's outline makes sense. I would add the following:

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

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

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

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

* If you chose not to pay the additional fee, only your 1st choice will be considered, until all 1st choice apps have been looked at. In this instance, only drawing your 1st choice will result in the applicants bonus points returning to zero.

* If you pay the additional fee, drawing any of your 1st-3rd choices will result in the loss of accrued bonus points.

The Preference point draw will remain unchanged.
 
put in a limited quoata for all three choices then you can still buy your leftover if not sucessfull
 
problem with that senario is 2nd choice p/p applicants are dropped in with random draw applicants for 2nd choice draw. This senario would give p/p applicants a double entry in the draw
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-21-12 AT 08:47AM (MST)[p]>problem with that senario is 2nd
>choice p/p applicants are dropped
>in with random draw applicants
>for 2nd choice draw. This
>senario would give p/p applicants
>a double entry in the
>draw

Every app goes thru the PP draw, regardless of point level, and everybody that didn't draw their 1st choice goes to the random draw.
 
I am not sure you understand what I am saying. The numbers you posted and the progected income will be different. Many/most residents would not put a 2nd choice if they had to pay extra. I think messing with how the draw works is a bad way to try and raise money. I think the simle solution would be to add $50.00 fee to the application and leave the draw alone.
 
a certain amount of licenses are allocated to p/p point pool and are available to p/p lic applicants first. only the unused licenses are moved to random draw
 
$50 to the res app is more than the lic fee in most cases. $50.00 to non res lic only would not create enough revenue
 
>a certain amount of licenses are
>allocated to p/p point pool
>and are available to p/p
>lic applicants first. only the
>unused licenses are moved to
>random draw

I'm aware of that. You stated the APPLICANT would somehow "double dip" by going from the PP draw to the random draw.
Every app goes thru the PP draw and every applicant that didn't draw a 1st choice goes to thru the random draw.
 
If you read the revised proposal the p/p applicants would have three chances in the p/p license giving them a much better chance of drawing a good area
 
correct as a 2nd choice draw, but under this proposal the second choice carries the same weight as a first choice.
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-21-12 AT 09:11AM (MST)[p]>correct as a 2nd choice draw,
>but under this proposal the
>second choice carries the same
>weight as a first choice.
>

All unsuccessful apps go from the PP draw to the random draw, where they still maintain their 1st choice selection.
The random draw is a 1st choice draw first. It's not a 2nd choice draw until all 1st choices have been looked at.
 
The long and the short of it is if you are accruing preference points and targeting only one specific area every time this proposal does you no good. Except it can thin the crowd ahead of you if someone also targeting your area opts for a second choice draws it and spends their points
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-21-12 AT 09:20AM (MST)[p]
>If you read the revised proposal
>the p/p applicants would have
>three chances in the p/p
>license giving them a much
>better chance of drawing a
>good area

I read your revised proposal and I don't like it. It makes the PP draw a 1st-3rd choice draw. I prefer buzz's outline with the clarifications I added. Buzz's outline protects those with bonus points, keeping the status quo. It then enables the random draw apps, that are on equal footing, a chance to increase their odds, but at a price. Both monetarily and a reduction of bonus points (if drawn). But, that's why we have dialog....
 
>The long and the short of
>it is if you are
>accruing preference points and targeting
>only one specific area every
>time this proposal does you
>no good. Except it can
>thin the crowd ahead of
>you if someone also targeting
>your area opts for a
>second choice draws it and
>spends their points

I agree 100%
 
under the current system you are a first choice applicant only ONE TIME p/p or not check with the G&F
 
If I were you I would to but it give an unfair advantage to p/p applicants as the get two chances in the draw
 
The p/p draw is fast becoming a terrible log jam for those trapped with points each year many areas just go up another point to draw. someting has to happen to move along those with max points or new hunters will never get a tag
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-21-12 AT 09:39AM (MST)[p]>If I were you I would
>to but it give an
>unfair advantage to p/p applicants
>as the get two chances
>in the draw

Where do you come up with that?

As I stated before, EVERY applicant is in the PP draw, even those with zero points. EVERY unsuccessful applicant from the PP draw is then in the random draw. None of that changes under Buzz's outline.
 
"and an app fee gives you no value for your dollars"

Like I have explained, the 2nd choice draw has no value to me. I am sure many residents only put in for one LE area and then a general tag. The general areas are great hunts if you hunt hard. I have one LE area I like and then general. I won't go with the shotgun approach...Best of luck to you.
 
Overall this is a bad idea. You are effectively trying to spread the added costs (price increase) over all applicants, instead of just those who draw the tag. Applicants who pay the extra fees you are proposing will still not draw a tag in many cases. It is already fairly expensive to apply in WY for a NR, and you are just increasing the application fee, without really increasing the chance of drawing a license.
Fact is, almost all of the licenses are issued each year, and you can't issue more licenses. All you are doing is skewing who gets the tags to those lucky enough to get a low random number in the drawing.Those with a low random number get the chance to draw in up to three premier units, before the guy with a high random number even gets his first choice looked at. This is not a solution. WY already has a fairly complicated draw system with first a preference point draw, and then a special versus regular draw option.
The Special draw pool is already a way for those with a greater interest in drawing (and a bigger checkbook) to increase their odds (usually). The proposal above is a further unnecessary complication that will drive hunter (and revenue) away.
Bill
 
I don't think "added value" is real important at this stage of the game. They can/will raise fees, with no added value unless a better mouse trap is presented. "Added value" needs to be a by product.

I'm kind of liking Buzz's outline. The downside is, it creates a disparity between applicants that can, or choose, to pay more for the added choices. That premiss is what makes SFW tag grabs such a bad idea. You put one applicant against another based on ability or willingness to pay. But, on the other hand, WY already does that with the special and regular draw.
 
>LAST EDITED ON Dec-21-12
>AT 09:39?AM (MST)
>
>>If I were you I would
>>to but it give an
>>unfair advantage to p/p applicants
>>as the get two chances
>>in the draw
>
>Where do you come up with
>that?
>
> As I stated before, EVERY
>applicant is in the PP
>draw, even those with zero
>points. EVERY unsuccessful applicant from
>the PP draw is then
>in the random draw. None
>of that changes under Buzz's
>outline.


>under the current system you are
>a first choice applicant only
>ONE TIME p/p or not
>check with the G&F

Sorry to be blunt but you have no clue how the draw works.
A phone call to the draw dept would explain it, or a 30 second glance at the odds reports will show you how it works.

I'll do it for you though,

unit 1, special draw, Elk, 69 1st choice applicants, 6 drew
unit 1, special, random draw, Elk, 63 1st choice applicants, which listed unit 1 as 1st choice, are now 1st choice in the random draw.
 
There are a certain number of tags allocated to random draw but your p/p draw does not drop down into the first choice go around. your 2nd choice in the p/p draw goes to the second go around not the first. call them and ask 307-777-4200
 
I applaud you. You have it exactly correct. But the license fees are going to go through the roof as well as a raise in the app fee. This at least give the applicant a choice of no additional fees.
 
those who apply for a single license would not have a app fee increase. If this proposal is adopted.
 
did you get straightened out on the draw proceedures? The game and fish is basing that response on a senario where you are the 10,000 applicant. any number below that the odd do skew in your favor. The lower the number the greater the chance of drawing
 
Left alone you will see all fees go up for all. This option gives you a choice to spend more or not
 
Per Llama, "All you are doing is skewing who gets the tags to those lucky enough to get a low random number in the drawing. Those with a low random number get the chance to draw in up to three premier units, before the guy with a high random number even gets his first choice looked at."

So if I'm reading this right, let's say I put in for elk area 100 as my first choice and don't draw. Some other guy also applies and pays the extra coin. He pulls lower random numbers than me. Under this proposal he could draw 100 as say his 3rd choice? If you think this idea sucks, I'd suggest some of you folks start emailing Stang's list of legislators and let'um know. On a side note, look who started this thread. Smoke's silence is deafening. I wouldn't be surprised if he isn't the one who helped fabricate this lousy idea and is working with his outfitter buddy, Stang behind the scenes to try and get something like this going.
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-21-12 AT 11:31AM (MST)[p]Strang---Are you in the WYSFW, an outfitter, and are you a buddy of Smokestick?
 
Guys,

I talked to Strang on the phone last night for about 40 minutes. I'm of the opinion that he's not out to pit hunters against each other.

I already asked in this thread if he was affiliated with WYSFW, and he said no. Your choice to take his word for it or not. I hope he's being truthful.

All that aside, even if this proposal came from WYSFW or Bob Wharff, I'd still give it some consideration. The only thing Bob has offered up is to slash the G&F budget, programs, and G&F staff.

In the call last night, we both agreed that a license fee is coming with or without this idea passing. There is a 6-10 million dollar shortfall. I also made it clear that whether a hunter pays more for the license or more for the application fee...its STILL hunters that are paying for it.

I'm still of the opinion, that as good or bad, as this idea may be, its still kicking the funding can down the road. I think whats going on with this proposal, and the fee increases in general, is that sportsmen are tired of paying ALL the freight for wildlife management. The only proposals that are being thought of are those where Sportsmen are asked AGAIN and AGAIN to shell out more money. That well is about dry.

The real solution lies in looking at long-term funding from non-traditional sources. Its wayyy past time for others that profit and benefit from wildlife to help pay the tab.

I hear the worn out line that we'll be giving others a seat at the table and wildlife management will become political. News Flash, it already is and has been for a very long time. Outside influences already have a seat at the table...exactly what anyone with a single firing brain cell, would expect from a politically appointed Director and Commission thats controlled by the State Legislature.

We also discussed that there would be pro's and con's to this idea, and right on cue, the ones we discussed are showing up.

I agree with most of the concerns being discussed.

There are no easy solutions and if anyone has any better ideas on how to improve this or can come up with better funding ideas in general...by all means bring them up.

We're in the chit on funding...solutions need to be found.
 
Good to know BuzzH! All I was concerned about is whether this proposal has a hidden agenda and/or might be reworded after we think it's okay to proceed with it amd it wouldn't accomplish anything other than screwing the guy who lacks funds. I agree fully with your comments on alternate funding methods we've already discussed and it looks like we are real odds on that with Bob and some others who think that they have control of the G&F when it's been like you stated for a long time. I really thin a tax on energy, motel rooms, or a combination of things like that would get the job done and nobody would even realize the outlay on an individual because of the way it would be spread across the entire population of users.
 
I started this thread as a person looking for alternate ways to finance Game and Fish deficit. If you think taht things are going to stay the same and you are not going to pay somewhere you are mistaken. Prices go up high enough you might think this is a bargain. Game and fish is going to be reducing taghs thus reducing revenue. tHIS IS TIED TO APPLICANTS NOT TAGS. Dont know anyone here just been promoting this everywhere I can cause its a way to generate revenue not tied to tag numbers
 
I am a sportsman, farmer, outfitter, we all share one goal betterment of wildlife and a balanced Game and Fish budget. I am not in competition with anyone for tags just offering up a revenue generating idea. I do not belong to any sportsman or trade group! But I have sent this to every group, legislator and blog I can find. Including this one. Because I believe it is a good idea
 
Thanks and I do believe that! Let's hope somebody comes up with some ways to get this mess straightened out and I again thank you for your idea, even if it doesn't come to fruition.
 
>If you think taht
>things are going to stay
>the same and you are
>not going to pay somewhere
>you are mistaken. Prices go
>up high enough you might
>think this is a bargain.

No mistake here. I've openly voiced my support for the proposed price increases. And yer idea isn't a bargain as I see it. I'd be pizzed off to know some guy drew my unsuccessful first choice tag on his third choice...
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-21-12 AT 10:22PM (MST)[p]Thanks to all of the folks in this forum for listening to my proposal. This January the wyo legislature will be deciding our lic fee fate. Please keep the "fair license fee proposal" in mind you mightfind. With all it's flaws it is still the best option or the lessor of the other evils.As I said it't a work in progress and subject to changes you can track the most current version at www.drawalicensenow,blogspot.com
 
My appologies to all in this forum I was mistaken in thinking that pref point applicants only had one opportunity to draw their first choice license. In reality they can be considered in the Pref, pt draw and then drop to the random draw and get another shot at thier first choice. This in effect dramatically reduces the chances of new people with no points being scuessful in the random draw process. What a great dweal for those who hvae accrued a few pref. points
 
Now that we have that behind us, would you entertain a modification to your proposal to the following:

Augment the drawing process to consider 2nd and 3rd choices on either Resident or Non-Resident applications that choose to pay an additional fee in the SPECIAL RANDOM draw only for deer, elk and pronghorn. Maximum number of additional choices considered will be (2) per species.
If you choose to pay the additional amount for the 2nd and 3rd choice, you will lose your accumulated points if drawn for any of those three choices.


The above would protect those with points in the PP draw, and since the Special draw is based on a willingness to pay for better odds, the proposal would stay within that framework.
 
Here's my input as a NR. The fee increases should be focused on license winners, NOT on applicants. The reason being Wyoming is already the most expensive western state, by far, to apply in as a NR. And particularly for those NR who apply for all species. My non-refundable app fees last year totaled 331.00 and that's without winning a single license of any kind. In fact I've applied for 7 years without drawing any tags at all, for a total non-refundable expenditure over that time period of 2300.00+. Not complaining at all, just pointing out that the app fees are already through the roof, when compared with all other western states.

The price boost could be more justifiably imposed on license fees, not app fees. To be honest, I'd cheerfully pay 2.5k for the NR elk tag I want, and 5k or more for the sheep, goat or moose tag I'm after. Deer, pronghorn and bison tags on the other hand, are already priced plenty high enough to NR.

If they keep boosting the app fees, there's a good chance my son & I will simply drop out. Not that we can't afford it, but at some point it just becomes stupid to continue, on a comparative value basis. In other words, we'll find it's actually cheaper to simply buy commissioner tags every 5-10 years.
 
all I can say to that is under this proposal you would have drawn by now and the pref point log jam would be broken
 
So, I'm assuming that since Residents only have a random draw, the second and third choice consideration would still be an option for Residents?
 
This proposal can only reduce draw wait time if:

1) Most applicants pass on the multi-choice option, thus granting a small odds advantage to the few, at the cost of those who can't afford the tack-on fees.

or

2) The app fee hike causes a significant number of people to stop applying altogether. This of course would make the proposal self-defeating.

Wyoming already stands alone in the west with a "special draw" system that says "pay more or your draw odds are less". This proposal takes that concept to the next level. If this is the path F&G wants to take, perhaps they could skip all these in-between steps and just go straight to auctioning off their high-demand tags to the highest bidder.

A better alternative IMO is reset the license fee structure as planned, in order to pay the bills now. Then look at instituting a permanent annual license fee increase tied to the CPI.
 
2nd and 3rd choice would be option for all with a fee attached but would be considered in first round
 
This option give you something for your fees. As opposed to a non optional flat increase. Choices IMO better chance at second and third choice or pay the money anyway and get the status quo
 
The CPI is not the index it is the GNPDEF which has increased an average of 3.9% per year over the last 35 years with a high in mid eighties year of 11.9%. I think letting any govt agency guarantee themselves a 4% per year raise is a mistake. If lic sales drop off where does the revenue from this automatic raise come from?
 
additional ammendments to fair lic fee proposal:All second and third choices which are cow/calf, doe/fawn, or anterless permits would not be accessed an additional application fee and preference point applicants would not spend their points if successful on these choices.
Youth applications would not be charged this fee and could not be designated as party organizer on group applications
www.drawalicensenow.blogspot.com
 
If Wyoming jacks up tag prices as proposed, 2013 will be my and my friends last time applying for hunts in Wyoming. We have spent a fortune on bonus points their. Their comes a time when enough is enough!! I just dont understand why Wyoming is hurting for money so badly. Wyoming already sells "special permits" at a much higher price, then charges rediculous prices for bonus points. Maybe, just maybe, the Wyoming DWR needs to make some cuts to meet their budget. Every other business in the USA has had to do this over the last few years. I think the Wyoming DWR is turning into the Utah DWR. Manage money not the wildlife!! I must live within my earning, why cant they!!
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-11-13 AT 06:56AM (MST)[p]The more amendments you make to this proposal of yours the less money it will take in for all the hassles it will create. There are too many assumptions on your part and not enough money to be made to change a system that people with PPs are vested in and not wanting changed. It doesn't have a chance of passing according to the people in charge of the draw in Cheyenne.
 
No doubt the folks with lots of points arent going to like this power shift. But a new hunter just coming in to the hunter ranks would be waiting 15 years to get a good tag under present system. All those fustrated with not getting a tag and dont have time to manipulate and study the system will love these changes. People holding numerous points are a minority of the applicant pool. High time the playing field was leveled for the new and future hunters.
 
The writing is on the wall! Prices are going up significantly for all tags. Unless the "Fair lic fee proposal" is enacted which give you a choice on how much you spend for you tag. If you are tired of being behind the pref point eightball and dont want lic fee increases then the "Fair lic fee proposal" is for you. www.drawalicensenow.blogspot.com
 
Gunner, as we've discussed before, first and foremost an understanding of the draw process would be helpful in crafting a proposal. Additionally, actually stating any/all changes that would be made to the current system would be noteworthy.
It's evident from reading the proposal that neither of these things have taken place.


from the proposal:

"Presently non resident pref. point applicants have two opportunities to have their first choice option drawn. First in the pref. point draw, and then they are pooled with all other remaining applicants and their first choice is considered again in the random draw."

As you know, but some may not, EVERY NR applicant is included in the NR Elk/Deer/Antelope Pref. Point draw and has their 1st choice looked at; even those with zero points. In actuality, this means EVERY NR is currently a PP applicant. ALL that were unsuccessful in that NR PP draw are then placed in the NR Random draw. There is no "pooling with remaining applicants".
The above is valid for both NR draws, Special and Regular.


He further states:

"In this proposal A pref. point applicant would never drop to random draw pool"

No explanation of how that's going to happen when currently every NR applicant is in the PP draw.
Is the proposal to change the NR draw such that the PP draw will only include those with a minimum of 1 point?
Too many false assumptions and poorly written with no explanations.
He should have listened to Buzz's suggestion of a rewrite.
 
firstly applicants with 0 pref points sre in the first draw but have no chance of drawing any tag worth applying for. secondly the criteria of who remains is the pref point draw would be anyony with any amount of pref points in their account. This was discussed with mellissa as how that could be done.
 
Tell you what lets put our cards on the table those vocal against this proposal post how many wyo points they each have. Maybe that will give some light on your position on this issue and if you choose not to then we will assume you have a reasont not to.
 
You finally got something right and that is that the fees are going up across the board whether you or anyone else likes it and, therefore, your proposal has no chance of passing against the Bill that will raise all fees that has a lot of big names backing it. The only things your Bill will help in the grand scheme of things is a very few more random people with no PPs, which means they don't have anything invested in the present system. The other is outfitters like yourself that can get return hunters easier than don't have the Pps to draw in an area that you service. You proposal is way too complicated to change the exisitng draw and would screw thousands of PP holders that are in the system, gegardless of whether they have 1 or 7 =for each species. A guy with 7 max PPs in the 3 pools has $840 invested and you're proposal will throw him under the bus---No way Jose!
 
If you can't take YOUR time to correctly state how the draw is currently done in your proposal, then explain why and how changes would be made, bantering back and forth with you isn't worth MY time.
 
>If you can't take YOUR time
>to correctly state how the
>draw is currently done in
>your proposal, then explain why
>and how changes would be
>made, bantering back and forth
>with you isn't worth MY
>time.


The final draft is done by the legislative committee. Then it will be all explained with legalease. And you did not post your points?
 
>You finally got something right and
>that is that the fees
>are going up across the
>board whether you or anyone
>else likes it and, therefore,
>your proposal has no chance
>of passing against the Bill
>that will raise all fees
>that has a lot of
>big names backing it.
>The only things your Bill
>will help in the grand
>scheme of things is a
>very few more random people
>with no PPs, which means
>they don't have anything invested
>in the present system.
>The other is outfitters like
>yourself that can get return
>hunters easier than don't have
>the Pps to draw in
>an area that you service.
>You proposal is way too
>complicated to change the exisitng
>draw and would screw thousands
>of PP holders that are
>in the system, gegardless of
>whether they have 1 or
>7 =for each species.
>A guy with 7 max
>PPs in the 3 pools
>has $840 invested and you're
>proposal will throw him under
>the bus---No way Jose!


The flat increase bill is supported fully by WY.O.G.A. the wyoming outfitters trade organization. Of which I am not a member. Many outfitters apply for points for their clients and manipulate the system for those with the money to hire them. I do not. I just see the system is log jammed and jumping lic fees 25% isnt the answer. You never posted you points????
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-11-13 AT 02:18PM (MST)[p]0 elk, 0 antelope, 4 PPs for deer----ya satisfied now? You and a jillion other outfitter/guides also aren't members of that association! You were completely wrong on the way the draw works when you first started touting your Bill and even lied about the Dep. Dir. saying you were correct. Then you were brought to task by WapitiBob when he had to go to that gentleman and the draw section staff to get emails showing that what you stated they told you was a lie on your part! I saw the friggin emails from the Dep. Dir. with my own eyes, so don't say another word! Now you keep changing this Bill of yours around every other time you come on a website. BuzzH came up with a much better way of doing it in just a matter of a couple hours a week or two ago and you never gave him the time of day! Now we will return the favor!!!
 
>No doubt the folks with lots
>of points arent going to
>like this power shift. But
>a new hunter just coming
>in to the hunter ranks
>would be waiting 15 years
>to get a good tag
>under present system. All those
>fustrated with not getting a
>tag and dont have time
>to manipulate and study the
>system will love these changes.
>People holding numerous points are
>a minority of the applicant
>pool. High time the playing
>field was leveled for the
>new and future hunters.

I will correct you last sentence. "High time the playing field was leveled for wealthy hunters"


txhunter58

venor, ergo sum (I hunt, therefore I am)
 
>LAST EDITED ON Jan-11-13
>AT 02:18?PM (MST)
>
>0 elk, 0 antelope, 4 PPs
>for deer----ya satisfied now?
>You and a jillion other
>outfitter/guides also aren't members of
>that association! You were
>completely wrong on the way
>the draw works when you
>first started touting your Bill
>and even lied about the
>Dep. Dir. saying you were
>correct. Then you were
>brought to task by WapitiBob
>when he had to go
>to that gentleman and the
>draw section staff to get
>emails showing that what you
>stated they told you was
>a lie on your part!
> I saw the friggin
>emails from the Dep. Dir.
>with my own eyes, so
>don't say another word!
>Now you keep changing this
>Bill of yours around every
>other time you come on
>a website. BuzzH came
>up with a much better
>way of doing it in
>just a matter of a
>couple hours a week or
>two ago and you never
>gave him the time of
>day! Now we will return
>the favor!!!


4 deer points yep that explains it
 
Strang,

When you first proposed this you said "If you agree that the "Fair License Fee Proposal" is a viable alternative to substantial license fee increases please share this page with others. Print it and contact Wyoming Game and Fish and let your feelings be known."

This was all about being a viable alternative to substantial license fee increases.

Now you say "No doubt the folks with lots of points arent going to like this power shift. But a new hunter just coming in to the hunter ranks would be waiting 15 years to get a good tag under present system. All those fustrated with not getting a tag and dont have time to manipulate and study the system will love these changes. People holding numerous points are a minority of the applicant pool. High time the playing field was leveled for the new and future hunters."

In another thread you said " Wyoming legislature is considering another proposal right now the "Fair lic fee proposal" if dont want tag prices raised and are tired of being behind the pref point eightball check this out"

Simple question for you, is your proposal a viable alternative to substantial license fee increases or is it simply "High time the playing field was leveled for the new and future hunters?" Or is this a way for those "tired of being behind the pref point eightball" to get one over of those with max points?

To be fair...I am a resident and would like to see the draw system for elk, deer and lope stay the same (i.e. no PP system). I have 4 deer points that I acquired before becoming a resident so if Wyoming starts a PP system for residents I would probably benefit.
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-11-13 AT 04:38PM (MST)[p]"4 deer points yep that explains it"

Explains what, LOL?! Is that all you can come up with? I see you didn't disagree with my statement that you outright lied to everyone on this and other websites about the way the draw worked in order to try and sway unsuspecting persons to back your proposal. Pitiful, absolutely pitiful!
 
Long answer first you must be 2years uninterrupted residency to be a Wy res per G&F regs. So I dont know if you could continue to buy pref pts as a non res while you were waiting for your res status. If you could not. And if it runs like tha res moose goat etc you loose your pts if you miss two years of buying pts. The fair lic fee proposal addresses several issues both statute and regulation so the commission and the legislature are working jointly on this. Presently residents only have pts for moose sheep and goat right now it takes like ten years to draw a marginal tag. On the non points draw you must choose your first choice carefully because if your are not chosen on your first choice your second choice options are marginal at best. The reason it streamlines the non res pref pt draw is because if an applicant has 4 pts like your self and his first choice draws 26% on the four pts he can choose a second choice that draws 100% on the 4 pts and rest pretty certain he is going to draw or even put in a third choice that draws 100% on three points and pack you bags. When you become a resident draw participant you will see the frustration of not being able to apply for covetted areas under the current system because your second choice is so far down the line you will likely end up with a gen, or sub-par license. So yes this proposal is multi faceted and addresses many of the shortcomings of the current system. It is also optional. Like thing the way they are? Just apply for one choice no additional fees and all is like it was before.
 
Stang....

What outfitter are you,or who do you work for??

Please answer that for a guy that doesn't post all that much. While you are at it, what is your position on the wilderness law with regards to non-residents??

I have a feeling it is all relative to the current discussion.
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-11-13 AT 09:43PM (MST)[p]>Long answer first you must be
>2years uninterrupted residency to be
>a Wy res per G&F
>regs. So I dont know
>if you could continue to
>buy pref pts as a
>non res while you were
>waiting for your res status.
>If you could not. And
>if it runs like tha
>res moose goat etc you
>loose your pts if you
>miss two years of buying
>pts. The fair lic fee
>proposal addresses several issues both
>statute and regulation so the
>commission and the legislature are
>working jointly on this. Presently
>residents only have pts for
>moose sheep and goat right
>now it takes like ten
>years to draw a marginal
>tag. On the non points
>draw you must choose your
>first choice carefully because if
>your are not chosen on
>your first choice your second
>choice options are marginal at
>best. The reason it streamlines
>the non res pref pt
>draw is because if an
>applicant has 4 pts like
>your self and his first
>choice draws 26% on the
>four pts he can choose
>a second choice that draws
>100% on the 4 pts
>and rest pretty certain he
>is going to draw or
>even put in a third
>choice that draws 100% on
>three points and pack you
>bags. When you become a
>resident draw participant you will
>see the frustration of not
>being able to apply for
>covetted areas under the current
>system because your second choice
>is so far down the
>line you will likely end
>up with a gen, or
>sub-par license. So yes this
>proposal is multi faceted and
>addresses many of the shortcomings
>of the current system. It
>is also optional. Like thing
>the way they are? Just
>apply for one choice no
>additional fees and all is
>like it was before.
I apply for a Resident License?


***Stang apparently doesn't know chit about the way anything in Wyoming works because here again he has completely misrepresented the Wyoming residency requirements. He also compeletely rmisrepresented the way the drawing workwed until outed on this website by WapitiBob! Here is the actual requirement and it's not 2 years, but one and is taken word for word from the G&F website, so don't believe anything else this guy comes up with because there is obviously a hidden agenda when a resident put up this proposal for nonresidents and it has nothing to do with the resident draws:
To qualify for any resident game and fish license, permit, preference point, or tag, a person shall be domiciled and shall physically reside in Wyoming for one (1) full year (365 consecutive days) immediately preceding the date the person applies for or purchases the license, permit, preference point, or tag and the person shall not have claimed residency elsewhere for any other purpose (including, but not limited to, voting, payment of income taxes, purchase of resident hunting, fishing, or trapping licenses, etc.) for that one (1) year period.

My best buddy is now living again in Wyoming and has not lost PPs when he moved to Ohio for two years and then back to Wyoming. Each time he was able to keep his PPs for moose and sheep and added two more points to them while applying as a nonresident and then as a resident after he was back in Wyoming for that one year requirement. He will be moving to ND next summer, but will still be able to buy all of his licenses as a resident this year even though he will be a nonresident by the time the hunting seasons start in the Fall. This guy strang appears to make up his own rules as he goes along to try and get support for this proposal of his when what he says is completely false!
 
It is one year to become a resident.

From the Wyoming Game and Fish website:

To qualify for any resident game and fish license, permit, preference point, or tag, a person shall be domiciled and shall physically reside in Wyoming for one (1) full year (365 consecutive days) immediately preceding the date the person applies for or purchases the license, permit, preference point, or tag and the person shall not have claimed residency elsewhere for any other purpose (including, but not limited to, voting, payment of income taxes, purchase of resident hunting, fishing, or trapping licenses, etc.) for that one (1) year period.

I am a resident and I have 4 deer preference points.

Where are you getting your information? You post things about the draw that are simply wrong! You post things about Wyoming residency that are simply wrong!

Now back to the question for you. Is your proposal a viable alternative to substantial license fee increases or is it simply "High time the playing field was leveled for the new and future hunters?"

When you say "When you become a resident draw participant you will see the frustration of not being able to apply for covetted areas under the current system because your second choice is so far down the line you will likely end up with a gen, or sub-par license."

Again, I AM A WYOMING RESIDENT! I have applied for the draw as a resident and I like the current system. If you honestly think the general tags are "sub-par" you need to wake up and get out in the woods. The Wyoming general tags are crazy good. I have seen 350 class bulls in the general "sub-par" units and 180 class deer in the same "sub-par" units.
 
This proposal by Stang is just bad policy, based on a flawed understanding of the system, and with a hidden agenda. Just a few posts ago he finally came clean and acknowledged the intent is to increase odds for those with few points, and screw those who already have points.
Even if this wasn't the case, the proposal still is lousy. Every time you see an overly confusing, convuluted regulation you can just bet the author understands the hidden loopholes and agenda within the proposal, and is trying to pull a fast one on those who don't spend the time to understand the twisted logic. Somehow he doesn't seem to understand that everyone (NR) that draws a tag suddenly has zero points again, so nobody has lots of points for long. Those that bank points indefinitely in WY hoping for some "magic" unit aren't really a problem for almost everybody else, who know that great animals are well dispersed in WY, and not found exclusively in one unit.

Bad, Bad policy, that regular sportsmen should flatly oppose.
Bill
 
Strang and son not hiding my name. I think the search and rescue is behind the wilderness law. I dont have forest permits so I dont know the history of that rule. Buy the way I am not a high ticket fancy outfit. I am a farmer and do hunts to make ends meet. Most of thoose govenors lic sell to outfitters who broker tham to clients for 15000$ hunts thats not me. I proposed the "Fair lic fee proposal" as ahunter who would like to apply for a hard to draw tag and not end up burning my only shot. Only reason non res comes into the picture is because they are all interconnected cant make rules for res that dont apply to nonres wher lic proceedure is involved. I really this is a good route foa the majority of applicants
 
You might want to think about hiding your name with all the incorrect and misleading information you keep posting on this and other websites! It sure won't bring you any business when, as an outfitter, you don't appear to know much about the state you are in!
 
The system is what it is. No way to make one that makes everyone happy... Back to the fee increase... You think that they will gain total revenue with nearly $500 deer and over $400 antelope nonresident tags? I'm thinking points investment will lock those into the tougher draw units and nonresident demand for the easier to draw and leftover tags will plummet... Total revenue will drop and small buisnesses selling goods and services to nonresidents hunters will be hurt...

BTW, wonder if WYGFD looked at living on a budget rather than just look at needing more revenue? At some point reducing expenses? Did they need a new headquarters? Never mind, the Feds dont either :)
 
EF---I think you may be correct on your analysis of the increasing fees. However, I believe the money for the new facilities you mentioned was a one time deal appropriated by the Legislature from the General Fund and not from excess money in the G&F budget, which was already too tight to allow it.
 
Game and fish is raising all fees not just hunting lic with a few exceptions everything is going up and asking for an indexed budget. They have figured lost applicants into their formula. And yes I stand corrected it is 1 year residency requirement. The long and short of it is you either like or dislike the proposal it is all there to be reviewed and will be reposted after it is written in a legal format by the legislature. I dont see any real position for objection except those holding a high number of points. But they can apply as usual with no second choice and keep their points and pay no more fees than before. Yes if you put in a second choice and draw it as a pref pt applicant you spend your points Those holding high point values are the minority of applicants and sometimes thing must change to level the playing field for all. Attacking my character doesnt change the content of the proposal you either like it or not. When the final writing comes out of the legislature the people of wyoming will determine its merit.
 
Sir, the more you post the more it shows you don't know the system! The Legislature won't be rewritng anything that comes to them from someone like yourself with just a couple sponsors! The Bill should have been finalized by someone who knows how to write a Bill the way you want it before it's even submitted. Then Legislators may look at it and ask for some tinkering amongst themselves based on what they have been receiving from their constituents if they think it has any merit. That's if their constituents even know anything about it and if it has nothing to do with them as residents they probably won't give a tinkers damn what it has in it! Your whole proposal screws those NRs who have been loyal to the system over the seven years since it's inception. They are counting on the system benefitting them because it should stay the same way as when it was started until they can cash out of it. To throw all of them under the bus is not right, and I would argue that it's not an insignificant number of people or money we're talking about like you want to say it is. The PP draws are a huge part of the overall system in case you haven't looked at it closely and I don't think you have in reading some of your statements. All you keep talking about now "is leveling the playing field" and not that your proposal will have any benefit to the G&F budget that supposedly was your reason for coming forward with it. It won't make enough money with all the assumptions you have used because those NRs that have looked at your proposal don't think it's remotely accurate and it will cause one big uproar if very many PP holders read about it! Right now with the fee increase across the board the one person the G&F needs to rely on putting in for the draws and PPs is ones who are already vested in the system. They can't rely solely on people with no PPs who have never been out there or those who have just been in the random draws hoping for a tag. Wehn they see the price increase many will say to hell with Wyoming because they can go elsewhere or stay at home. Your last sentence is really laughable because it won't come out of the Legislature for anyone to see whether it has any merit at all unless it passes and goes to the Governor for his signature. Fat chance that either will happen!
 
The term sponsor in the legislature is the representative or senator who introduces the bill to committee. The committee then sends it to be written in legalease then it is reviewed by the committee. I dont see where you think youre getting screwed? Just apply get a tag or collect a point or buy a point until you can get to the total of points to get what you want. In those senarios you dont pay an extra dime. You want a regional lic buy it after the draw? Wheres the rub?
 
This bill has a lot more to do with resident licenses than non res licenses. And they do give a damn matter of fact they applaud it.
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-12-13 AT 02:11PM (MST)[p]Very simple! The way the system is set up now anyone with PPs has a better chance with two shots at their first choice because they go to the random draw if they don't draw in the PP one, unlike the original lie you stated saying they don't and then tried to back it up by saying the Dep. Dir. had verified that when he hadn't and I saw his email saying so! Your proposal takes that away and also would require a person to pay for second/third choices that are now free and would take away PPs if they draw on those choices, which is not now the case. Therefore, it screws them royally in more ways than one!!! Also, it's funny, but I haven't seen a single positive comment from a resident or nonresident on any website that you have posted your proposal on! So why don't you expound on how it has anything to do with residents when it is all regarding the NR draws? Other than resident outfitters who might benefit from it by getting a few more clients that lack the PPs now to draw a unit, I'd like to know how it helps the overall residents, so let's hear it!
 

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

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

5AEFC2FF-CC2D-4412-869B-91D2A6672F31.jpeg
IMG_20180414_222343_01~2.jpg
IMG_5340.jpeg
IMG_0013.jpeg
IMG_3231.JPG
DSCN0050.JPG
_AAT7004-Edit.jpg
PXL_20210305_212856033.jpg
image3.JPG
Screenshot_20240725_034846_Facebook.jpg
Arizona Strip Beast
2B7F6C45-08C0-4A63-9AB8-8175FEE281A8.jpeg
Back
Top Bottom