SF060 Dead for now… Task force a failure or success?

[elks96]

Just saw that the Special price increases failed to pass…

Good deal. It makes me wonder, was the task force a success or failure?

What do you think…

 

[BuzzH]

Failure, it was supposed to increase Resident opportunity and the only 2 things that even remotely helped residents were 90-10 and funding the WWNRT.

Both of which wouldn't have required a task force to pass.

I'm sure this one failing is stinging WOGA...I'd expect retribution in the form of some kind of set aside bill.

Would be nice to see the bonus point bill go down in flames too.

 

[Mooretitan]

Thank You to the people who are fighting to keep nonresident opportunities in Wyoming.

Thanks

 

[Crampy]

Would be nice to see the bonus point bill go down in flames too.

And have sheep/moose remain PP?

Don’t we need something like BP-squared (esp on the NR side) for sheep/moose to have any chance at viability long term?

 

[nfh]

Failure. A task force of well you know who they are. I am disappointed there was no members of people like @jm77 or @BuzzH who have a full understanding of operations of game and fish/commissioners and legislation. When I had a visit with the governor I brought this subject up that all members are outfitters and big land owners..

I also hope the bonus points fail. I don't even know where to start on my reasons why cause the list is long. I get to start purchasing pref points for one of my kids. Little young for a sheep hunt but I can just purchase a point and and maybe he will be lucky drawing a random or go in for the long wait. Bonus points is a big gamble and not knowing what year you will draw. Could be year 2 or year 30 for for him but with the current system I know the gamble of that 1 random tag he could get and if I don't want that gamble I can simply buy a point. Currently at age 11 even he has stated yaaaa I would like to wait till he is older. For now we need to focus on a chance at antelope, deer and some doe/fawn tags to start building that experience

Does the pref points need attention and somehow make that system better? I think yes but I don't have those answers for a perfect system.

 

[BuzzH]

And have sheep/moose remain PP?

Don’t we need something like BP-squared (esp on the NR side) for sheep/moose to have any chance at viability long term?

No, how about change current statute from 75% of tags for preference and 25% in random to a 50-50 split random/preference.

The positives:

1. No need for the department to spend $33,000 more to conduct the draw.

2. Keeps the existing system in place that is nearing 30 years deep.

3. Gives long term applicants the ability to still predict when they'lll draw.

4. Makes tag splits easier and assures that half the tags are in the random draw.

5. All you have to do is change two words 75-50 and 25-50.

Easy...too easy...going to see if I can make that happen.

 

[vansterdam123]

Thank You to the people who are fighting to keep nonresident opportunities in Wyoming.

Thanks

Don’t drink that kool-aid.

No WY resident was doing NRs any favors for altruistic reasons.

Residents got their 90/10 on big-5 and they absolutely deserved it. We had a common enemy (WOGA) on some of the issues.

They weren’t doing anything for you - we just made strange bedfellows.

 

[HikeHunt61]

No, how about change current statute from 75% of tags for preference and 25% in random to a 50-50 split random/preference.

That sounds great- and would be all for it. Of course, I use my pref points early for "good", not "great" hunts.

For those who have decades of points built up- could they sue the state for a change that materially impacts the value of the preference points they've been buying all that time?

 

[BuzzH]

That sounds great- and would be all for it. Of course, I use my pref points early for "good", not "great" hunts.

For those who have decades of points built up- could they sue the state for a change that materially impacts the value of the preference points they've been buying all that time?

Not a question of if you can sue...you can sue over most anything. You know, like bruising someone's air space.

With the passing of the Reid amendment, that reaffirms the rights of the States to discriminate anyway they want against NR hunters, I say, "well, good luck with that"...

 

[HikeHunt61]

I suppose the same situation exists for the 90-10 split, so good point. The only difference is that it isn't a R against NR thing. It's an NR against other NR thing. Probably the same answer though...

 

[BuzzH]

I suppose the same situation exists for the 90-10 split, so good point. The only difference is that it isn't a R against NR thing. It's an NR against other NR thing. Probably the same answer though...

The problem is, the lawsuit would be against the WYGF Department, which has the ability to do anything they want in regard to wildlife found within its borders (with the exception of ESA listed animals, migratory waterfowl, and anadromous fish).

That includes changing, modifying, or doing away with point systems all together.

Same thing happened with lawsuits regarding higher priced NR fees, draw allocations, wilderness guide law...all tried and failed.

 

[WapitiBob]

Don’t drink that kool-aid.

No WY resident was doing NRs any favors for altruistic reasons.

Residents got their 90/10 on big-5 and they absolutely deserved it. We had a common enemy (WOGA) on some of the issues.

They weren’t doing anything for you - we just made strange bedfellows.

?

 

[elks96]

Failure. A task force of well you know who they are. I am disappointed there was no members of people like @jm77 or @BuzzH who have a full understanding of operations of game and fish/commissioners and legislation. When I had a visit with the governor I brought this subject up that all members are outfitters and big land owners..

I also hope the bonus points fail. I don't even know where to start on my reasons why cause the list is long. I get to start purchasing pref points for one of my kids. Little young for a sheep hunt but I can just purchase a point and and maybe he will be lucky drawing a random or go in for the long wait. Bonus points is a big gamble and not knowing what year you will draw. Could be year 2 or year 30 for for him but with the current system I know the gamble of that 1 random tag he could get and if I don't want that gamble I can simply buy a point. Currently at age 11 even he has stated yaaaa I would like to wait till he is older. For now we need to focus on a chance at antelope, deer and some doe/fawn tags to start building that experience

Does the pref points need attention and somehow make that system better? I think yes but I don't have those answers for a perfect system.

So you would rather him to never get a chance? With the current set up the only way he gets a chance is to outlive everyone else…. The oldest person gets the tag.

I would much prefer no points at all and a completely random draw. With the logic presented are you not applying your son for bison as he might draw it sooner than later? I would much rather try and take a 12 year old kid on a sheep hunt than someone 70…

I would say the squared bonus points system is without a doubt the best option, other than eliminating all points and going back to true random for residents.

I would like to see the bonus points pass… That is a lot better than the current system, but maybe not the best system.

If you are really worried about you kid being too young to draw. Without points at all you simply just don’t apply until he is old enough…

 

[Crampy]

No, how about change current statute from 75% of tags for preference and 25% in random to a 50-50 split random/preference.

The 50% PP side of your idea will still saturate. Back in the same pickle a few years later.

BP-squared is timeless and won’t saturate. But yes, eventually someone will die at 82 with 70 moose/sheep BPs that never drew. $150/point is overpriced for that guy for sure.

Hopefully they will had a true statistician evaluate this and not just the state employee who seemed best with numbers.

 

[nfh]

So you would rather him to never get a chance? With the current set up the only way he gets a chance is to outlive everyone else…. The oldest person gets the tag.

I would much prefer no points at all and a completely random draw. With the logic presented are you not applying your son for bison as he might draw it sooner than later? I would much rather try and take a 12 year old kid on a sheep hunt than someone 70…

I would say the squared bonus points system is without a doubt the best option, other than eliminating all points and going back to true random for residents.

I would like to see the bonus points pass… That is a lot better than the current system, but maybe not the best system.

If you are really worried about you kid being too young to draw. Without points at all you simply just don’t apply until he is old enough…

Like I said the pref point game definitely needs some tweeking. I don't like the bonus point game and hope it doesn't pass.

As far as not applying for the first year is a choice I have to make as a dad.Example going to DC, Minnesota and Texas this summer, then fall sports,school and such. Thats a time crunch if he got lucky on that one random tag. Also taking a 12 year old in that country, the grizzly encounters he isnt ready for. I grew up on a horse and put in those situations at a young age to where he hasn't that much.

Hey my dad started my points at a young age and hunted sheep at the age of 34. I could also currently hunt moose but choose not to apply for the areas I can draw but I focus on the end goal on a particular unit and that's my choice and I am fine with the wait cause I am very close

 

[jm77]

Failure. The G&F Commission, along with the G&F Dept are charged by state law to manage wildlife for the people of Wyoming, through the public process.. They need to do their job.

 

[BuzzH]

So you would rather him to never get a chance? With the current set up the only way he gets a chance is to outlive everyone else…. The oldest person gets the tag.

I would much prefer no points at all and a completely random draw. With the logic presented are you not applying your son for bison as he might draw it sooner than later? I would much rather try and take a 12 year old kid on a sheep hunt than someone 70…

I would say the squared bonus points system is without a doubt the best option, other than eliminating all points and going back to true random for residents.

I would like to see the bonus points pass… That is a lot better than the current system, but maybe not the best system.

If you are really worried about you kid being too young to draw. Without points at all you simply just don’t apply until he is old enough…

Your first sentence is pure crap, as long as there's a random draw, everyone has a chance.

I personally don't give a chit...I've drawn plenty of tags on both random and with points. I'm done with both moose and sheep in Wyoming for life, so whatever people want. Just don't ever b itch to me again down the road when you find out squaring bonus points is the dumbest idea on the planet, because it is.

I was looking at it from the angle of everybody giving up something, and everyone gaining something too.

With 90-10 passing, a 50-50 split would greatly benefit those hunters in the random draw. More than doubling the number of tags in the random side (residents). It would also maintain the current draw system so the folks that have bought in for nearly 3 decades still have a chance. It would also mean not having the department spend additional money on a new drawing system.

Not perfect, but much better for those that are pretty much limited to the random side of the draw.

Like I said, I personally don't give a chit that much either way, but will still push my idea, because I can and it makes way more sense than a squared bonus point system.

 

[BuzzH]

The 50% PP side of your idea will still saturate. Back in the same pickle a few years later.

BP-squared is timeless and won’t saturate. But yes, eventually someone will die at 82 with 70 moose/sheep BPs that never drew. $150/point is overpriced for that guy for sure.

Hopefully they will had a true statistician evaluate this and not just the state employee who seemed best with numbers.

Yes it does, your odds decrease the longer you're in the system...fact.

I had higher odds of drawing a sheep tag in Nevada 10 years ago than I do now...with over 20 squared bonus points.

The uptick in applicants totally reduced my odds of drawing. Squared points don't mean jack chit when several thousand people have entered the draw behind you.

 

[elks96]

Your first sentence is pure crap, as long as there's a random draw, everyone has a chance.

I personally don't give a chit...I've drawn plenty of tags on both random and with points. I'm done with both moose and sheep in Wyoming for life, so whatever people want. Just don't ever b itch to me again down the road when you find out squaring bonus points is the dumbest idea on the planet, because it is.

I was looking at it from the angle of everybody giving up something, and everyone gaining something too.

With 90-10 passing, a 50-50 split would greatly benefit those hunters in the random draw. More than doubling the number of tags in the random side (residents). It would also maintain the current draw system so the folks that have bought in for nearly 3 decades still have a chance. It would also mean not having the department spend additional money on a new drawing system.

Not perfect, but much better for those that are pretty much limited to the random side of the draw.

Like I said, I personally don't give a chit that much either way, but will still push my idea, because I can and it makes way more sense than a squared bonus point system.

Haha. I was not talking about you proposed splits. I never said I was opposed to it. I do believe that the squared bonus is better than current situation. So calm down just a touch and realize that I was only comparing current system with the current proposal on the table.

As a result the new proposal is preferable to the current. And yes, even with the random my son would be much more likely to die with a pile of poo at then he would draw the random.

But again my preferred all the way around is to ditch the entire system and go back to 100% random and let the chip fall where they fall… oh I hardly ever ***** to you not sure I ever have, but in the future I don’t for see me bitching to you…

 

[elks96]

Yes it does, your odds decrease the longer you're in the system...fact.

I had higher odds of drawing a sheep tag in Nevada 10 years ago than I do now...with over 20 squared bonus points.

The uptick in applicants totally reduced my odds of drawing. Squared points don't mean jack chit when several thousand people have entered the draw behind you.

You are
Correct on this the squared bonus is simply a random that allows the state to sell points… Hence again why I would prefer a pure random draw…

 

[elks96]

Failure. The G&F Commission, along with the G&F Dept are charged by state law to manage wildlife for the people of Wyoming, through the public process.. They need to do their job.

I agree with this… The task force was not the correct step at all… Do you see the force moving forward or have they outlived their usefulness?

 

[BuzzH]

Haha. I was not talking about you proposed splits. I never said I was opposed to it. I do believe that the squared bonus is better than current situation. So calm down just a touch and realize that I was only comparing current system with the current proposal on the table.

As a result the new proposal is preferable to the current. And yes, even with the random my son would be much more likely to die with a pile of poo at then he would draw the random.

But again my preferred all the way around is to ditch the entire system and go back to 100% random and let the chip fall where they fall… oh I hardly ever ***** to you not sure I ever have, but in the future I don’t for see me bitching to you…

Odds are your son isn't going to draw a moose or sheep tag in Wyoming ever...that's the first step to realizing he's hosed either way.

The question is how to salvage the best system for everyone, squared points isn't it.

My solution gives your son wayyyyyyy better odds than a squared bonus points system. Doesn't take a math major to figure it out either.

 

[dwalton]

Squared bonus points being the best drawing system is one of those myths that keeps getting regurgitated (similar to Idaho having the best NR draw odds for sheep and mtn goats).

Take a look at Nevada's stats (30 years of bonus points), and compare the amount of sheep tags drawn by the top point holders versus the lowest point holders.

 

[HikeHunt61]

Thinking more about the rights of states to set laws concerning hunting allocations, I do wonder...

Clearly they can set the laws. Just like a government can use eminent domain to claim land. But the government is usually required to provide compensation. If someone has purchased 1000's of dollars of pref points, and the law changes just to change the odds for folks (not because of wildlife management reasons), I do wonder.

I doubt someone can keep the law from being enacted. I worry they could sue for damages resulting from the law though.

 

[Crampy]

Yes it does, your odds decrease the longer you're in the system...fact.

I had higher odds of drawing a sheep tag in Nevada 10 years ago than I do now...with over 20 squared bonus points.

The uptick in applicants totally reduced my odds of drawing. Squared points don't mean jack chit when several thousand people have entered the draw behind you.

That could happen. Did you run your NV sheep numbers to prove that this happened in last 10 years? Would take a good uptick to make that happen, but certainly possible.

BP-cubed would make it less likely if you want to give greater weight to old-timers and lessen that phenomena.

BP-squared/cubed (whatever) isn't going to satisfy everyone. But at least neither will saturate like the 50% PP side of your idea.

And if WY had the courage to go full random on M/S - well, then someone might get enough courage to sue.

 

[BuzzH]

That could happen. Did you run your NV sheep numbers to prove that this happened in last 10 years? Would take a good uptick to make that happen, but certainly possible.

BP-cubed would make it less likely if you want to give greater weight to old-timers and lessen that phenomena.

BP-squared/cubed (whatever) isn't going to satisfy everyone. But at least neither will saturate like the 50% PP side of your idea.

And if WY had the courage to go full random on M/S - well, then someone might get enough courage to sue.

Yes, I did look at it. Huge interest in Western Hunting really took off about 10-15 years ago and its not slowing down. Even though the odds suck, most guys aren't affording 50-60K desert sheep hunts. That's why there's so many new applicants every year.

You have to remember, you're fighting everyone that enters the draw behind you, as well as those in your point pool.

There's a reason more of the tags are going to the lower point pools in Nevada, Dwalton has done the same math I have apparently.

Cubing everyone points does NOTHING to benefit long term applicants.

Now if you cubed only those with say 15 or more points, you MAY keep up with new applicants...may. Would more than likely only keep your odds from decreasing or not getting worse.

 

[tracker12]

Failure. The G&F Commission, along with the G&F Dept are charged by state law to manage wildlife for the people of Wyoming, through the public process.. They need to do their job.

I don't think "for the people of WY"is in there charter.

 

[Crampy]

Thinking more about the rights of states to set laws concerning hunting allocations, I do wonder...

Clearly they can set the laws. Just like a government can use eminent domain to claim land. But the government is usually required to provide compensation. If someone has purchased 1000's of dollars of pref points, and the law changes just to change the odds for folks (not because of wildlife management reasons), I do wonder.

I doubt someone can keep the law from being enacted. I worry they could sue for damages resulting from the law though.

Do you have GoFundMe set up for this yet to see if the Buzz-Reid amendment is as bulletproof as Buzz thinks it is?

The Buzz-Reid amendment is interesting. And there have been plenty of lost suits on the NR wilderness rule and NR discrimination, generally.

But I've not seen a citation to a case involving a state that changed the bargain in such a substantial and discriminatory way. A state that raised PP fees substantially (to $150) and then reneged a short while later on the implicit deal. Both parties involved in that deal knew that the only reason those points were worth $150 was because they were PP and allocation was 75/25 (or similar).

Those were NOT explicit terms in any document, but certainly implied. If a private company pulled that trick, the class action attorneys would be lined up.

 

[SDBugler]

"I was looking at it from the angle of everybody giving up something, and everyone gaining something too."


I would like to know what my family would be gaining with 50/50?
NO system is perfect. Everyone knowingly entered the current system at some point knowing what they were getting into and everyone got into it with a different game plan, and everyone has different priorities/objectives/strategies. We all have different situations - both res and non-res.

For example, with 50/50 split what happens when there is only 1 NR tag? Do you put it in the random draw and snub your nose at the guys that have patiently spent time and money knowing when they started out many years ago that it may be a loooong time and still no guarantee but stayed the course rather than going for a next tier unit? Or do you keep it in the point draw? Either way you can't say "everyone gains something".

I'm sure I will get bashed for a questioning comment. But that's ok.

 

[HikeHunt61]

Do you have GoFundMe set up for this yet to see if the Buzz-Reid amendment is as bulletproof as Buzz thinks it is?

LOL- I have zero interest in suing the great state of Wyoming. I would actually benefit from a 75-25 to 50-50 change. But, as I learned during my career in a non-related industry, one should always consider the risks and liabilities of changes that negatively impact 1000s of people.

Mitigation approaches are a cool thing...

 

[DanMan]

Reducing the PP percentage to 50% would only add to the already bad point creep situation.

 

[nfh]

A 50/50 would increase pp creep but you're also satisfying the people with points from 0 to xx at a chance in the 50 percent random.. and the guys with a butt load of points get their satisfaction knowing they will draw

Look at the moose. Didn't they use to give out over 1200 tags in 1995 and now it's what 300 ish( don't have the numbers in front of me) but when moose declined obviously so did tags which shorted a lot of hunters. So that adds to point creep but part of the game and risk.

 

[Crampy]

... and the guys with a butt load of points get their satisfaction knowing they will draw

But most won't of them won't get tags either. For an NR, it' now only 5% of tags. Once completely saturated and matured, only the oldest living applicant gets a tag. And only if he started buying $150 moose/sheep points when he was 12 years old.

The resident side will eventually mature and saturate like that also.

 

[lostinOregon]

I thought this was all guaranteed and all of us peasant NR were screwed.

Rich

 

[nfh]

Would love to hear other ideas?

Just amazes you never see this discussion in any other state forum.

 

[Bookhead]

Pp for everything I say and no it won't be like it is for moose and sheep

 

[AZNATIVE98]

Would love to hear other ideas?

Just amazes you never see this discussion in any other state forum.

I wonder if that is because no other western states give NR more than 10% of their tags to begin with?

 

[nfh]

I wonder if that is because no other western states give NR more than 10% of their tags to begin with?

Not sure but has me curious. I know I pay more in other states then what NR pay in wyo

 

[HikeHunt61]

I wonder if that is because no other western states give NR more than 10% of their tags to begin with?

This^^^^

 

[tracker12]

Since I have used up all my NR points Im all in for going 50/50 random lol

 

[BuzzH]

"I was looking at it from the angle of everybody giving up something, and everyone gaining something too."


I would like to know what my family would be gaining with 50/50?
NO system is perfect. Everyone knowingly entered the current system at some point knowing what they were getting into and everyone got into it with a different game plan, and everyone has different priorities/objectives/strategies. We all have different situations - both res and non-res.

For example, with 50/50 split what happens when there is only 1 NR tag? Do you put it in the random draw and snub your nose at the guys that have patiently spent time and money knowing when they started out many years ago that it may be a loooong time and still no guarantee but stayed the course rather than going for a next tier unit? Or do you keep it in the point draw? Either way you can't say "everyone gains something".

I'm sure I will get bashed for a questioning comment. But that's ok.

First off, there seems to be lots of confusion, this bill will only be for sheep and moose.

Well, if you family doesn't have near max points for sheep and moose, they'll be gaining more tags in the random draw. I guess you could just compete in a squared bonus point system, but you're even more hosed if your a low point holder or new applicants. Instead of 1-100ish odds, welcome to 1-several thousand odds when considering squared points.

I think you need to sharpen your pencil, along with all the rest that think a squared bonus point system will help you...it wont.

If there is one tag, alternate years, one year random, one year preference...pretty easy. Same as they do when there's less than 4 sheep tags in a unit, they split up the R/NR allocation for areas with 3,2, or 1 tag.

I've killed 2 bull moose, 1 ram in Wyoming...so I'm done for life other than trifecta or raffle tags. Knock yourself out voting against yourself and lowering odds even further for new applicants/youth.

Really don't care.

 

[BuzzH]

Do you have GoFundMe set up for this yet to see if the Buzz-Reid amendment is as bulletproof as Buzz thinks it is?

The Buzz-Reid amendment is interesting. And there have been plenty of lost suits on the NR wilderness rule and NR discrimination, generally.

But I've not seen a citation to a case involving a state that changed the bargain in such a substantial and discriminatory way. A state that raised PP fees substantially (to $150) and then reneged a short while later on the implicit deal. Both parties involved in that deal knew that the only reason those points were worth $150 was because they were PP and allocation was 75/25 (or similar).

Those were NOT explicit terms in any document, but certainly implied. If a private company pulled that trick, the class action attorneys would be lined up.

Show me the lost lawsuit on the NR wilderness rule or any other case where NR discrimination was successfully argued. I can show you all kinds of cases where NR's lost their ass...

If you think you have a case...make it.

 

[SummitsCalling]

Not surprising to see the usual suspects cry over this result. Same ones took advantage of a system for themselves only to try and used car salesman another one for them to take advantage over. Don't buy anything from someone who talks out of both sides of their mouth.

 

[BuzzH]

Do you have GoFundMe set up for this yet to see if the Buzz-Reid amendment is as bulletproof as Buzz thinks it is?

The Buzz-Reid amendment is interesting. And there have been plenty of lost suits on the NR wilderness rule and NR discrimination, generally.

But I've not seen a citation to a case involving a state that changed the bargain in such a substantial and discriminatory way. A state that raised PP fees substantially (to $150) and then reneged a short while later on the implicit deal. Both parties involved in that deal knew that the only reason those points were worth $150 was because they were PP and allocation was 75/25 (or similar).

Those were NOT explicit terms in any document, but certainly implied. If a private company pulled that trick, the class action attorneys would be lined up.

Utah, Arizona, Colorado, Montana, all have changed their point systems.

I completely lost the ability to apply at all for RFW tags in Colorado.

Montana started a point system in the 70's then completely got rid of it. Started one again, just a straight bonus point system, then changed it to squared bonus point after about 10 years.

Utah used to be $5 to apply for a point and you could only apply for one of the big-5 tags plus either deer/elk/pronghorn. Now it requires a NR license, fee's are higher, and everyone NR can apply for all species.

All of those are drastic changes to when I started applying for tags seriously in the 1990's.

Nobody sued anyone...but now everyone's hair is on fire about Wyoming making changes.

Deal with it, file a lawsuit or don't apply.

Don't care anymore.

 

[BuzzH]

Not surprising to see the usual suspects cry over this result. Same ones took advantage of a system for themselves only to try and used car salesman another one for them to take advantage over. Don't buy anything from someone who talks out of both sides of their mouth.

That holds water if a person isn't done for life...pretty tough to take advantage of a new system when you can't even apply or gain points for moose and sheep.

 

[DanMan]

I wonder if that is because no other western states give NR more than 10% of their tags to begin with?

Pretty sure that I would have my AZ early archery tag by now if AZ hadn't cut the bonus point tags in half going 50/50 a few years back ?

 

[Crampy]

The AZ 5/5 split from 2016 is the closest analogy I have seen to the WY wealth transfer of 2022.

The significant difference is that WY was getting $150/point for each of moose and sheep. $300/year per person plus any other fees, etc.

AZ was only getting about $10-15 per species for an app fee and no point fee, correct?

I felt slighted by AZ also, but it is a different situation altogether when WY absconds with large sums of money like they did here.

And yes, way back, those WY points were only $7. Several price hikes prior.

 

[BuzzH]

The AZ 5/5 split from 2016 is the closest analogy I have seen to the WY wealth transfer of 2022.

The significant difference is that WY was getting $150/point for each of moose and sheep. $300/year per person plus any other fees, etc.

AZ was only getting about $10-15 per species for an app fee and no point fee, correct?

I felt slighted by AZ also, but it is a different situation altogether when WY absconds with large sums of money like they did here.

And yes, way back, those WY points were only $7. Several price hikes prior.

Arizona gets a nice fat license fee...right around $200 just to apply if you want to gain a point.

I've never felt slighted by Arizona...4 rifle bull elk tags, desert sheep, 5 late coues deer tags, so many javelina tags I'm really not sure how many I've had.

I've drawn one bull rifle tag in the random (drew back to back tags in 2011 and 2012 for the same unit), 2 late coues tags as well as my desert sheep tag. Drawn 3 coues tags and 3 elk tags with points.

I never complain about spending money to fund the resource...if I get a tag, even better.

Never have felt like any State owes me a tag because I choose to apply...mainly because they don't owe NR's jack chit. In fact, they don't even have to let NR's apply.

 

[Crampy]

Arizona gets a nice fat license fee...right around $200 just to apply if you want to gain a point.

Correct, $160 AZ base license as a prerequisite to acquire species points. So, you could allocate 1/8 of that to each of the 8 species in AZ points. Add that $20 to $15 and you are still nowhere near the $150 WY M/S point.

It's the scope of the money involved that is different here.

By cleanly labeling each of these $150 Moose/Sheep point fees as such, it makes it easier to calculate damages at a later date.

 

[BuzzH]

Correct, $160 AZ base license as a prerequisite to acquire species points. So, you could allocate 1/8 of that to each of the 8 species in AZ points. Add that $20 to $15 and you are still nowhere near the $150 WY M/S point.

It's the scope of the money involved that is different here.

By cleanly labeling each of these $150 Moose/Sheep point fees as such, it makes it easier to calculate damages at a later date.

Good luck with that... hilarious.

I'll be on the edge of my seat waiting to see your lawsuit....scope of that should be extra special.

 

[WapitiBob]

The AZ 5/5 split from 2016 is the closest analogy I have seen to the WY wealth transfer of 2022.

The significant difference is that WY was getting $150/point for each of moose and sheep. $300/year per person plus any other fees, etc.

AZ was only getting about $10-15 per species for an app fee and no point fee, correct?

I felt slighted by AZ also, but it is a different situation altogether when WY absconds with large sums of money like they did here.

And yes, way back, those WY points were only $7. Several price hikes prior.

Wyoming wasn't getting $150 for points in 2016.

 

[HikeHunt61]

Well, I'll admit to confusion over applicability of 50-50 being proposed. If it's only to sheep and moose, it's hardly a big deal- either positively or negatively.

With 90-10- there will be about 55 tags for NR between the two species. A move from 75% to 50% impacts a whopping 14 licenses per year. That's 14 people getting a tag who didn't stand a chance before, and 14 people who would have gotten a tag pushed forward.

It negatively impacts so few people, there is no significant liability, if any. But the flip side is the positive impacts are just as small- is it worth making the change? 14 people each year would say so

About 5500 nonresidents apply for those 55 tags. The 75 to 50 rule change would impact 0.5% of them each year.

If that rule applied to elk, antelope and deer- it would have far greater impact...

 

[jims]

You can argue until the cows come home but it really doesn't matter until you sit down and look at the actual draw stats and the negative impacts and implications 90/10 has on nonres. The true details and implications are brought to life once you look at the actual nonres tag numbers for the big 5.

Lets use sheep as an example. There were only 6 random draw bighorn tags issued in 2022 to nonres. Of the total 15 sheep units there were 5 units that offered nonres random tags. Of those 5 units with nonres tags there were 4 that only offered 1 tag and 1 unit offered 2 tags in 2022.

The big question becomes, if the random vs pref pt pool of tags stays the same and 1/2 of the sheep tags are stripped from nonres with 90/10 what happens in the units where there has only been 1 tag issued? There potentially could only be 1 sheep unit in Wyoming that offers 1 random nonres tag if things stay status-quo.

With only 1 or 2 random tags issued do you think it is worth it for nonres to even apply or spend $150/year on pref pts? It will also take several lifetimes of years to cycle through the handful of sheep tags issued to the high pref pt applicants. Unless you have max sheep pts it is pretty fruitless paying $150/year for pref pts if things stay status-quo and even worse if changed.

Now look at the nonres sheep pref pt pool of tags. Of the 15 sheep units there were 6 units that only offered 1 pref pt nonres tag and 3 units that offered 2 nonres tags. If nonres sheep quotas are cut in 1/2 that means that 6 units will no longer offer pref pt tags and 3 units will only offer 1 nonres tag. If nonres quota % are changed there potentially would be even fewer pref pt units available to nonres.

In the big picture of things, there could potentially only be 1 nonres sheep tag issued in the random pool and 9 of the 15 units will offer pref pt tags if nothing is changed. If a higher % of nonres tags are stripped from the pref pt pool there will be fewer units available to apply in the pref pt pool of tags.

Ultimately, with fewer units available for nonres hunters to apply and 1/2 the sheep tags stripped from nonres with 90/10 the impacts are going to be brutal with any draw scenario. It's obviously great that a few additional Wyo residents will secure bighorn tags but at the expense of ALL nonres hunters that have devoted years and $ to applying for these high demand tags!

 

[tracker12]

Utah, Arizona, Colorado, Montana, all have changed their point systems.

I completely lost the ability to apply at all for RFW tags in Colorado.

Montana started a point system in the 70's then completely got rid of it. Started one again, just a straight bonus point system, then changed it to squared bonus point after about 10 years.

Utah used to be $5 to apply for a point and you could only apply for one of the big-5 tags plus either deer/elk/pronghorn. Now it requires a NR license, fee's are higher, and everyone NR can apply for all species.

All of those are drastic changes to when I started applying for tags seriously in the 1990's.

Nobody sued anyone...but now everyone's hair is on fire about Wyoming making changes.

Deal with it, file a lawsuit or don't apply.

Don't care anymore.

UT letting you apply for multi species killed that system. Big money grab for sure on their part.

 

[nripepi]

Your first sentence is pure crap, as long as there's a random draw, everyone has a chance.

I personally don't give a chit...I've drawn plenty of tags on both random and with points. I'm done with both moose and sheep in Wyoming for life, so whatever people want. Just don't ever b itch to me again down the road when you find out squaring bonus points is the dumbest idea on the planet, because it is.

I was looking at it from the angle of everybody giving up something, and everyone gaining something too.

With 90-10 passing, a 50-50 split would greatly benefit those hunters in the random draw. More than doubling the number of tags in the random side (residents). It would also maintain the current draw system so the folks that have bought in for nearly 3 decades still have a chance. It would also mean not having the department spend additional money on a new drawing system.

Not perfect, but much better for those that are pretty much limited to the random side of the draw.

Like I said, I personally don't give a chit that much either way, but will still push my idea, because I can and it makes way more sense than a squared bonus

Utah, Arizona, Colorado, Montana, all have changed their point systems.

I completely lost the ability to apply at all for RFW tags in Colorado.

Montana started a point system in the 70's then completely got rid of it. Started one again, just a straight bonus point system, then changed it to squared bonus point after about 10 years.

Utah used to be $5 to apply for a point and you could only apply for one of the big-5 tags plus either deer/elk/pronghorn. Now it requires a NR license, fee's are higher, and everyone NR can apply for all species.

All of those are drastic changes to when I started applying for tags seriously in the 1990's.

Nobody sued anyone...but now everyone's hair is on fire about Wyoming making changes.

Deal with it, file a lawsuit or don't apply.

Don't care anymore.

I think 50/50 as you proposed would be fair and would eliminate any class-action lawsuits. If it goes to bonus points or squared bonus points, then anyone with 20 or greater points has a great case. None of your examples are even close to the same as changing from preference to bonus after 25 years of time and thousands of dollars invested. From the non-res with 22 points I would recommend something silimar to the Utah system with 50% preference and 50% straight bonus.

 

[Wyo_Roadhunter]

Failure. I don't like the task force at all. I didn't like them from the start but when they tried to sneak in the guide only draws and the replies I got when I emailed what I thought sealed the deal.

 

[BuzzH]

Well, I'll admit to confusion over applicability of 50-50 being proposed. If it's only to sheep and moose, it's hardly a big deal- either positively or negatively.

With 90-10- there will be about 55 tags for NR between the two species. A move from 75% to 50% impacts a whopping 14 licenses per year. That's 14 people getting a tag who didn't stand a chance before, and 14 people who would have gotten a tag pushed forward.

It negatively impacts so few people, there is no significant liability, if any. But the flip side is the positive impacts are just as small- is it worth making the change? 14 people each year would say so

About 5500 nonresidents apply for those 55 tags. The 75 to 50 rule change would impact 0.5% of them each year.

If that rule applied to elk, antelope and deer- it would have far greater impact...

It's a big deal if there are no random tags issued due to 90-10.

It makes all kinds of sense to keep the current point system and go 50-50.

 

[SDBugler]

“I think you need to sharpen your pencil, along with all the rest that think a squared bonus point system will help you...it wont.”

Where did I say I was in favor of a squared bonus point system?

Between my three sons and myself we submit over 200 applications each year so pretty familiar with most of the western states and the different systems. So I would say my pencil is pretty sharp.

 

[BuzzH]

“I think you need to sharpen your pencil, along with all the rest that think a squared bonus point system will help you...it wont.”

Where did I say I was in favor of a squared bonus point system?

Between my three sons and myself we submit over 200 applications each year so pretty familiar with most of the western states and the different systems. So I would say my pencil is pretty sharp.

If you're not you better start sending some emails...or that's exactly what you'll be getting if you apply for moose and sheep in Wyoming.

50 applications each is no big deal, so you probably aren't applying for moose and sheep in Wyoming.

 

[wyoflythrower]

It’s going to be interesting how many non-residents with less than max points continue to buy sheep/moose preference points. Basically lighting money on fire at this point with no positive impact other than funding Wyo G&F. Would be better to just donate the money and get a tax write off as they are worthless at this point. They will have maybe a very little increase in value if WY goes to a bonus point system down the road but certainly not worth the cost. And with WY purging points if you fail to buy a point for two years it’s time to cut loses and bail IMO.

 

[HikeHunt61]

It's a big deal if there are no random tags issued due to 90-10.

It makes all kinds of sense to keep the current point system and go 50-50.

Big deal to 14 people, or 28 people. Yep....

 

[fullcry]

With a few chronic Residents crying about non residents and looking to find ways to decrease tags to this group, some how thinking this gives residents more opportunities.
You’re missing the big picture.
Idaho guys whined about non residents for many years.In such a short time, so many new residents have moved in.Now non resident tags
are nothing compared to overall terrible odds.Idaho will be in draws not long down the road.Odds are getting so bad they will have no choice.

So, Wyoming is in the same type of boat.Some residents are so worried about Non Residents they ain’t watching they’re back.
The Outfitters are the one going to get You!
Long term you will have no general hunt to go anywhere you want.You will be unit specific and rules/seasons will be adjusted so you start getting much less opportunity.Your being funneled down a road.
These guys have a plan and it’s only starting.
Increased NR license cost were shot down by the Outfitters. We’re do you think they are going to get the increased revenue? And who do you think long term is the group going to lose out on opportunities??

 

[Crampy]

If M/S points remain $150 (or anywhere close), there will NOT be an influx of applicants to cause the BP-squared phenomenon discussed above.

Even up to about 22 NR points, I would think guys would be wanting 100% BP-squared before Buzz’s 50/50 PP/random idea. At least on the NR side. A guy with 20 points (BP-squared to 400 chances) is way better off than he is with Buzz’s idea. The Buzz 50/50 plan gives him only 1 random chance and basically zero chance on the PP side. Even at 20-22 NR points, most of those guys will die before getting a PP tag on the PP side of the Buzz 50/50 plan. On the NR side,, that plan is a last man living model within a few short years.

But the Buzz idea probably does work out for WY residents. And yes, I know Buzz is no longer eligible for m/s so I’m not alleging he has a personal conflict of interest.

 

[twopointdn]

I bail years ago when they increase the point fees. Only so much money to play with for my income level and family responsibilities. Burning $300 a year with little chance at ever drawing a tag did not fit into my plans. If more people did some math they would save a lot of money by giving up. Gambling is not very fun if you can never win. I like playing games that I have a chance at winning so I look for those opportunities. Everyone is different so have fun with your chosen path.

 

[BuzzH]

If M/S points remain $150 (or anywhere close), there will NOT be an influx of applicants to cause the BP-squared phenomenon discussed above.

Even up to about 22 NR points, I would think guys would be wanting 100% BP-squared before Buzz’s 50/50 PP/random idea. At least on the NR side. A guy with 20 points (BP-squared to 400 chances) is way better off than he is with Buzz’s idea. The Buzz 50/50 plan gives him only 1 random chance and basically zero chance on the PP side. Even at 20-22 NR points, most of those guys will die before getting a PP tag on the PP side of the Buzz 50/50 plan. On the NR side,, that plan is a last man living model within a few short years.

But the Buzz idea probably does work out for WY residents. And yes, I know Buzz is no longer eligible for m/s so I’m not alleging he has a personal conflict of interest.

Most anybody entering the draw with people with 2-30 points ahead of them is going to die without drawing a tag.

 

[BuzzH]

With a few chronic Residents crying about non residents and looking to find ways to decrease tags to this group, some how thinking this gives residents more opportunities.
You’re missing the big picture.
Idaho guys whined about non residents for many years.In such a short time, so many new residents have moved in.Now non resident tags
are nothing compared to overall terrible odds.Idaho will be in draws not long down the road.Odds are getting so bad they will have no choice.

So, Wyoming is in the same type of boat.Some residents are so worried about Non Residents they ain’t watching they’re back.
The Outfitters are the one going to get You!
Long term you will have no general hunt to go anywhere you want.You will be unit specific and rules/seasons will be adjusted so you start getting much less opportunity.Your being funneled down a road.
These guys have a plan and it’s only starting.
Increased NR license cost were shot down by the Outfitters. We’re do you think they are going to get the increased revenue? And who do you think long term is the group going to lose out on opportunities??

May I be so bold as to ask what the proof was on the bottle you got into this evening?

If WY goes draw only for deer and elk, 90-10 will go the same year.

Outfitters did not kill the NR fee increase bill either...they supported it and was their idea from the task force.

 

[Togwotee]

Why is it everyone is always sweating whether a kid has an even chance with the old sap who's paid his dues for 25 years ? get in line kid this is one place we're not all instant winners.

How many times can you have the same arguments ? NR hunters you're not going to have any say whatsoever on this so stop amusing them. burn your points ASAP if possible and everyone look at how old you are and what your odds are. if it's somewhere on par with megabucks then you're a sucker if you stay in.

 

[Bookhead]

Why is it everyone is always sweating whether a kid has an even chance with the old sap who's paid his dues for 25 years ? get in line kid this is one place we're not all instant winners.

How many times can you have the same arguments ? NR hunters you're not going to have any say whatsoever on this so stop amusing them. burn your points ASAP if possible and everyone look at how old you are and what your odds are. if it's somewhere on par with megabucks then you're a sucker if you stay in.

Well for one most of the "old saps" were around when the pp game started so if they haven't got a tag for a moose or sheep by now that's their own fault a kid coming into a 25 year old preference point program is no fault of their own and there should be a chance for them to at least have a shot in the dark

 

[jims]

There may be other options similar to colos hybrid draw system that may work? An allotted number of tags could be issued to those with highest pts and then a chunk of other tags are issued to hunters that have 5+ pts that all have the same chance to draw. All hunters with more than 5 pts have the same chance to draw a hybrid tag. The % of tags available in each could be 50/50 or what ever is decided.

The hybrid draw seems like a pretty decent compromise. It may also make the WG&F happy because more applicants would continue to buy pref pts rather than totally giving up having almost 0 chance to draw with the current system for sheep and moose.

There are many different options that could be considered using combination of pref pts, bonus pts, no pts, hybrid bonus pts, hybrid pref pts, no pts, etc.

I’m sure the WG&F would be tickled to death if a draw system was put into place where they won’t loose nonres pref/bonus pt budget! Also a system where nonres hunters with less than max pts still have a chance to draw tags.

 

[newhunter]

W

Utah, Arizona, Colorado, Montana, all have changed their point systems.

I completely lost the ability to apply at all for RFW tags in Colorado.

Montana started a point system in the 70's then completely got rid of it. Started one again, just a straight bonus point system, then changed it to squared bonus point after about 10 years.

Utah used to be $5 to apply for a point and you could only apply for one of the big-5 tags plus either deer/elk/pronghorn. Now it requires a NR license, fee's are higher, and everyone NR can apply for all species.

All of those are drastic changes to when I started applying for tags seriously in the 1990's.

Nobody sued anyone...but now everyone's hair is on fire about Wyoming making changes.

Deal with it, file a lawsuit or don't apply.

Don't care anymore.

Wyoming is not talking about making changes to preference point system. It's talking about eliminating it. We bought preference. A place in line. Not bone us points. More chances. Eliminating preference my be breach of contract. Nothing to do with states wildlife management. Nothing to do with tag numbers or allocation. We bought preference for $6. Then Wyoming convinced us and sold us that preference is worth way more than $6. ($150.) No other state sells bonus points for anywhere near that price. Wyoming convinced us that preference is worth more. Allot more. I WILL NEVER SUE.
Wyoming sold us preference, is talking about eliminating preference, installing a new system (bone us). Not what was sold to us. We bought a product, with any implied contract, now Wyoming is saying that produce may not exist, will be throne away, will be worthless. My two cents.

 

[BuzzH]

W

Wyoming is not talking about making changes to preference point system. It's talking about eliminating it. We bought preference. A place in line. Not bone us points. More chances. Eliminating preference my be breach of contract. Nothing to do with states wildlife management. Nothing to do with tag numbers or allocation. We bought preference for $6. Then Wyoming convinced us and sold us that preference is worth way more than $6. ($150.) No other state sells bonus points for anywhere near that price. Wyoming convinced us that preference is worth more. Allot more. I WILL NEVER SUE.
Wyoming sold us preference, is talking about eliminating preference, installing a new system (bone us). Not what was sold to us. We bought a product, with any implied contract, now Wyoming is saying that produce may not exist, will be throne away, will be worthless. My two cents.

Preaching to the choir, I'm trying to convince the knotheads here to keep the preference points system in place for moose and sheep and split 50-50 between random and preference.

Going to be pressing the legislature to go that route.

 

[Crampy]

W

Wyoming is not talking about making changes to preference point system. It's talking about eliminating it. We bought preference. A place in line. Not bone us points. More chances. Eliminating preference my be breach of contract. Nothing to do with states wildlife management. Nothing to do with tag numbers or allocation. We bought preference for $6. Then Wyoming convinced us and sold us that preference is worth way more than $6. ($150.) No other state sells bonus points for anywhere near that price. Wyoming convinced us that preference is worth more. Allot more. I WILL NEVER SUE.
Wyoming sold us preference, is talking about eliminating preference, installing a new system (bone us). Not what was sold to us. We bought a product, with any implied contract, now Wyoming is saying that produce may not exist, will be throne away, will be worthless. My two cents.

I agree that you would be experiencing a bait & switch.

But unless you have mid 20s m/s points today, you’ll be better off with BP-squared than the Buzz 50/50 plan. Simply aren’t enough tags for even guys in the NR 22-ish range to ever get a tag on PP side of the Buzz 50/50 plan. Absolutely zero chance for many of those NRs. At least BP-squared gives you a chance at 100% of the NR tags, not just the 50% random in the Buzz plan.

It’s a good thing that BP-squared was a 14-2 TF recommendation and is now in a bill before the WY legislature.

Whereas the Buzz 50/50 plan is just something he typed on a message board.

 

[SummitsCalling]

That holds water if a person isn't done for life...pretty tough to take advantage of a new system when you can't even apply or gain points for moose and sheep

I'm sure you'll find a way to game the system or already traded away future deals for more tags

May I be so bold as to ask what the proof was on the bottle you got into this evening?

If WY goes draw only for deer and elk, 90-10 will go the same year.

Outfitters did not kill the NR fee increase bill either...they supported it and was their idea from the task force

And you supported NR cuts, you traded. You didn't stop it

 

[jims]

It’s definitely worth looking in detail at tag numbers available with each option. It’s impossible to compare the different draw options without comparing numbers of each side-by-side.

 

[newhunter]

I agree that you would be experiencing a bait & switch.

But unless you have mid 20s m/s points today, you’ll be better off with BP-squared than the Buzz 50/50 plan. Simply aren’t enough tags for even guys in the NR 22-ish range to ever get a tag on PP side of the Buzz 50/50 plan. Absolutely zero chance for many of those NRs. At least BP-squared gives you a chance at 100% of the NR tags, not just the 50% random in the Buzz plan.

It’s a good thing that BP-squared was a 14-2 TF recommendation and is now in a bill before the WY legislature.

Whereas the Buzz 50/50 plan is just something he typed on a message board.

It does not matter If I would be better off with a bonus point system. Which I disagree with. I bought a preference point. I want preference. Even if no one cares. Wyoming pushed preference and assigned a hi value to preference. We paid for preference even if the odds are zero. Bonus points have very little value. Study other states numbers. It may be a breach of contract.

 

[Crampy]

It does not matter If I would be better off with a bonus point system. Which I disagree with. I bought a preference point. I want preference. Even if no one cares. Wyoming pushed preference and assigned a hi value to preference. We paid for preference even if the odds are zero. Bonus points have very little value. Study other states numbers. It may be a breach of contract.

mm
Agree – the bait & switch sucks and a private company would have been sued by now.



But wouldn’t you rather have something with some value (BP-exponent) instead of no value (PP)?

I suspect you have mid 20s m/s PPs going in to 2023. I have 15 so even without knowing allocation details it is clear they have ZERO value as PPs going forward in any type of model. At 45yo, I die first even if I was stupid enough to keep buying $150 points. Only a super m/s population explosion would save me.

But with BP-squared, I have a chance. The bottom end won’t flood with new applicants if they keep the price anywhere close to $150.

But yes, guys in the mid-20s range are going to want to retain PP a few more years (longer than the proposed transition period) so that they can potentially eek out a PP tag. But the PP last-living-applicant model saturates and is not viable long-term.

If you have mid-20s PPs, you should be the guy starting the GoFundMe! I will donate even tho I disagree about when we should pull off the band-aid.

 

[HikeHunt61]

For NR sheep, there are 84 people with 24 or more PPs. Assuming they allot 15 (under 90-10) to PP draw, it will take 6 years to clear them out. Then there are 256 people with 23 points. Another 16 years to get through them (22 years from now). If you have 22 points or less, you are SOL under PP system. Meaning- THEY ARE WORTHLESS.

My bad- I suppose in all that time some portion of those point holders will die of Covid or get hit by a bus. But the point is the same- holding on to the PP system is silly. If you have less than 22 or 23 points, buying a PP is simply a donation to the state with ZERO chance of getting anything for it. Ever.

Ya- they need to transition to a bonus point or other system at some point. The vast majority of PPs sold today are guaranteed to have no value. THAT seems to be a problem for the state. With a bonus system, the purchased points at least have some small value.

 

[Crampy]

Excellent analysis of why the Buzz’s 50% PP model (or any PP model) will fail under stress.

I hate the TF as much as anyone. And I love/hate Buzz as much as anyone.

But because 90/10 on Big-5 happened, BP-exponent for m/s is the only viable path forward and the TF got it right with their letter/bill on this issue. With the transition period to try to screw over a few fewer guys (fewer possible plaintiffs).

I don’t understand why you 20+ NR m/s guys don’t have a GoFundMe yet. I need somewhere to put that $300 that I used to waste on WY m/s points.

 

[BuzzH]

For NR sheep, there are 84 people with 24 or more PPs. Assuming they allot 15 (under 90-10) to PP draw, it will take 6 years to clear them out. Then there are 256 people with 23 points. Another 16 years to get through them (22 years from now). If you have 22 points or less, you are SOL under PP system. Meaning- THEY ARE WORTHLESS.

My bad- I suppose in all that time some portion of those point holders will die of Covid or get hit by a bus. But the point is the same- holding on to the PP system is silly. If you have less than 22 or 23 points, buying a PP is simply a donation to the state with ZERO chance of getting anything for it. Ever.

Ya- they need to transition to a bonus point or other system at some point. The vast majority of PPs sold today are guaranteed to have no value. THAT seems to be a problem for the state. With a bonus system, the purchased points at least have some small value.

Lots of top point holders don't apply for tags and if they do it's very specific areas.

Not even close to every sheep and moose area takes max points.

That includes residents too...I drew my sheep tag with preference points and was way under max.

 

[BuzzH]

For NR sheep, there are 84 people with 24 or more PPs. Assuming they allot 15 (under 90-10) to PP draw, it will take 6 years to clear them out. Then there are 256 people with 23 points. Another 16 years to get through them (22 years from now). If you have 22 points or less, you are SOL under PP system. Meaning- THEY ARE WORTHLESS.

My bad- I suppose in all that time some portion of those point holders will die of Covid or get hit by a bus. But the point is the same- holding on to the PP system is silly. If you have less than 22 or 23 points, buying a PP is simply a donation to the state with ZERO chance of getting anything for it. Ever.

Ya- they need to transition to a bonus point or other system at some point. The vast majority of PPs sold today are guaranteed to have no value. THAT seems to be a problem for the state. With a bonus system, the purchased points at least have some small value.

Squared bonus points have even less value...check the Nevada sheep draw results, very few if any top point holders draw.

I have a metric $hit ton of squared points in Montana and Nevada...haven't sniffed a tag and I don't put in for the glory units either.

Your odds decline over time with a squared bonus points system...it's simple math.

 

[newhunter]

The state of Wyoming has and continues to imply preference points are worth $150. We all knew that the number of tags and there allocation could be changed. Just because Wyoming changes allocation doesn't mean it should change to bonus. We paid for preference, anything short of this could breach of contract. The only reason for talk of bonus is so Wyoming can still collect your money. Wyoming could go to a hybrid system without breach of contract. Similar to Colorado. It would be complicated, but Wyoming created this situation. Stop selling preference points. Everyone keeps preference points until all used up. Sell bonus points from now on. Split preference and bonus 50/50 as Buzz suggests. Half for preference half for bonus. We keep our preference new hunters get bonus. No one will be happy means it's probably best.

 

[HikeHunt61]

I'm not advocating for a BP^2 system. I'm just saying that anyone buying PPs with less than 22 are getting nothing for their money. Last year, nobody with less than 22 got a tag in the PP draw. And that minimum PP number will increase every year.

I don't see how Wyoming can continue, in good faith, to sell PPs to people with under 22 PPs. And those are the vast majority of PPs sold.

BP would solve the "worthless" point problem- that's all I'm saying.

 

[newhunter]

Excellent analysis of why the Buzz’s 50% PP model (or any PP model) will fail under stress.

I hate the TF as much as anyone. And I love/hate Buzz as much as anyone.

But because 90/10 on Big-5 happened, BP-exponent for m/s is the only viable path forward and the TF got it right with their letter/bill on this issue. With the transition period to try to screw over a few fewer guys (fewer possible plaintiffs).

I don’t understand why you 20+ NR m/s guys don’t have a GoFundMe yet. I need somewhere to put that $300 that I used to waste on WY m/s points.

I have stated (another thread) and will give my $300 plus donations I used to give Wyoming to anti-hunting organizations with the money delegated to be used in Wyoming only.

 

[HikeHunt61]

The state of Wyoming has and continues to imply preference points are worth $150. We all knew that the number of tags and there allocation could be changed. Just because Wyoming changes allocation doesn't mean it should change to bonus. We paid for preference, anything short of this could breach of contract. The only reason for talk of bonus is so Wyoming can still collect your money. Wyoming could go to a hybrid system without breach of contract. Similar to Colorado. It would be complicated, but Wyoming created this situation. Stop selling preference points. Everyone keeps preference points until all used up. Sell bonus points from now on. Split preference and bonus 50/50 as Buzz suggests. Half for preference half for bonus. We keep our preference new hunters get bonus. No one will be happy means it's probably best.

That's kind of what they are proposing. They have the 4 or 5 year waiting period, which will flush most who would have gotten one with PP. After that time, even the max people in the 100s would be waiting 10+ years. I suppose they could extend it another few years...

 

[BuzzH]

I'm not advocating for a BP^2 system. I'm just saying that anyone buying PPs with less than 22 are getting nothing for their money. Last year, nobody with less than 22 got a tag in the PP draw. And that minimum PP number will increase every year.

I don't see how Wyoming can continue, in good faith, to sell PPs to people with under 22 PPs. And those are the vast majority of PPs sold.

BP would solve the "worthless" point problem- that's all I'm saying.

By splitting the tags 50-50...random draws keep people applying while giving them a reason to acquire points. IMO, if I were 12 years old I'd be buying points. I think over time interest will decline as the boomers start dropping and all the negative Nellie's quit applying and purchasing points.

I knew damn well when I started these point systems that they would change and that the odds say I wouldn't draw even buying points.

The only way to beat the odds is to apply with a chance at a random tags Points can sometimes keep your odds from declining or in some rare cases improve your odds if you apply smartly.

But, for the longest odds tags, you're screwed no matter the system.

I've drawn wayyyy more random tags than preference, and even fewer with squared point systems.

 

[newhunter]

I'm not advocating for a BP^2 system. I'm just saying that anyone buying PPs with less than 22 are getting nothing for their money. Last year, nobody with less than 22 got a tag in the PP draw. And that minimum PP number will increase every year.

I don't see how Wyoming can continue, in good faith, to sell PPs to people with under 22 PPs. And those are the vast majority of PPs sold.

BP would solve the "worthless" point problem- that's all I'm saying.

Check again, there was moose drawn last year with less than 22 points. Sometimes I'm nitpicking. Wyoming has been selling PP in good faith to people who will never draw for years. They just made it worse with 90/10. It didn't change the fact the $150 PP doesn't guarantee a tag ever.

 

[newhunter]

Excellent analysis of why the Buzz’s 50% PP model (or any PP model) will fail under stress.

I hate the TF as much as anyone. And I love/hate Buzz as much as anyone.

But because 90/10 on Big-5 happened, BP-exponent for m/s is the only viable path forward and the TF got it right with their letter/bill on this issue. With the transition period to try to screw over a few fewer guys (fewer possible plaintiffs).

I don’t understand why you 20+ NR m/s guys don’t have a GoFundMe yet. I need somewhere to put that $300 that I used to waste on WY m/s points.

Every point system fails under stress.

 

[HikeHunt61]

Check again, there was moose drawn last year with less than 22 points. Sometimes I'm nitpicking. Wyoming has been selling PP in good faith to people who will never draw for years. They just made it worse with 90/10. It didn't change the fact the $150 PP doesn't guarantee a tag ever.

Analysis was just NR sheep. Moose is similar, just a point or two lower

 

[HikeHunt61]

I think over time interest will decline as the boomers start dropping and all the negative Nellie's quit applying and purchasing points.

Anything's possible I suppose. But at status quo, the math says ditch it.

I'm honestly shocked that anyone is buying PPs except those over 20 banked. I quit many years ago when I realized the futility. I'm actually good with donations to Wyo- just wanted some small chance of success for the dollars.

 

[BuzzH]

Analysis was just NR sheep. Moose is similar, just a point or two lower

What happens when moose and sheep populations improve and more tags are issued?

 

[BuzzH]

Anything's possible I suppose. But at status quo, the math says ditch it.

I'm honestly shocked that anyone is buying PPs except those over 20 banked. I quit many years ago when I realized the futility. I'm actually good with donations to Wyo- just wanted some small chance of success for the dollars.

Should be applying for the random tags, dumb if you don't. I drew a random moose permit. Glad I didn't listen to the critics and whiners or I never would have drawn all the great tags I have.

 

[HikeHunt61]

Should be applying for the random tags, dumb if you don't. I drew a random moose permit. Glad I didn't listen to the critics and whiners or I never would have drawn all the great tags I have.

You're right about the random.

What happens when moose and sheep populations improve and more tags are issued?

Again, anything is possible. But at 75-25, it was unsustainable. At 90-10, the popluations would have to almost triple just to get it back to the formerly unsustainable level

 

[fullcry]

While some of you guys are trying to change things to better YOUR odds down the road. Some of your ideas actually make sense. However
Remember Wyoming is the ones who made the 90/10 change.They have a much bigger agenda.
Crying residents think they just picked up a few more tags, but in reality looking ahead, the next step down the path is to get everyone on board to funnel the masses towards their own long term goals.
Your all being lead down a path and you don’t see it coming.

 

[newhunter]

What happens when moose and sheep populations improve and more tags are issued?

This is and always has been the real issue. This what the departments of game/wildlife in ever state are required to do.
Maintain or grow wildlife and habit. They are willing to pit different user groups against each other, to divert failing to improve these things. All we are doing is debating allocation of a shrinking supply. A page out of a anti-hunt book.

 

[BuzzH]

I'm sure you'll find a way to game the system or already traded away future deals for more tags

And you supported NR cuts, you traded. You didn't stop it

I fully support all states that prioritize resident opportunity. Wyoming is now in line with every other western state that also limit NRs to 0-10,% of top tier tags.

I "game" the system by submitting high volumes of applications for the past 42 years.

I know, everyone hates a winner...in particular those that are losers.

 

[nfh]

@BuzzH didnt you draw a random moose tag last year? if so how did it go

 

[newhunter]

mm
Agree – the bait & switch sucks and a private company would have been sued by now.



But wouldn’t you rather have something with some value (BP-exponent) instead of no value (PP)?

I suspect you have mid 20s m/s PPs going in to 2023. I have 15 so even without knowing allocation details it is clear they have ZERO value as PPs going forward in any type of model. At 45yo, I die first even if I was stupid enough to keep buying $150 points. Only a super m/s population explosion would save me.

But with BP-squared, I have a chance. The bottom end won’t flood with new applicants if they keep the price anywhere close to $150.

But yes, guys in the mid-20s range are going to want to retain PP a few more years (longer than the proposed transition period) so that they can potentially eek out a PP tag. But the PP last-living-applicant model saturates and is not viable long-term.

If you have mid-20s PPs, you should be the guy starting the GoFundMe! I will donate even tho I disagree about when we should pull off the band-aid.

But wouldn’t you rather have something with some value (BP-exponent) instead of no value (PP)?

NO.
If there is a problem that Wyoming created, Wyoming can solve it without taking away the preference I paid for.

I don't want a bonus point. Bonus points have very little value. I don't have much to loose.

 

[BuzzH]

@BuzzH didnt you draw a random moose tag last year? if so how did it go

Worked out right fair...scouted a couple times during the summer went over a few days before opener.

Found a bull about 10 minutes into opening day, that I thought I heard calling the night before opener walking between the upper aspen patches in this photo:

He was on private, so gave a single cow call. He came in steadily walking the entire way and I killed him at about 200 yards. Shot him on the sage flat in the the center of the photo, he died in the right stringer of willows. Too good of a bull to pass, even though the hunt was over in about 20-30 minutes of hunting. Can't complain, I had 2 great bull moose hunts in Wyoming and got to hunt them in 2 different units.

 

[nripepi]

Ya- they need to transition to a bonus point or other system at some point. The vast majority of PPs sold today are guaranteed to have no value. THAT seems to be a problem for the state. With a bonus system, the purchased points at least have some small vavalue.w

Why not 50% preference and 50% bonus squared? If they go to all bonus squared there will be 100s of non-res and res in a class action for their sheep tag they waited 20-25 years for. The value of a sheep tag is big money, especially when you multiply it by 100s. The only way I think they have any legal leg to stand on if they switch from preference to bonus is to offer everyone their money back for points. Easier just to go with Buzz's model, or both preference and bonus or bonus squared. Bonus squared likely brings in the most money from non-reaidents. Or go to the Buzz model, but run the one side like Colorado where you need 3 or 5 points to get in the random game.

 

[nfh]

Worked out right fair...scouted a couple times during the summer went over a few days before opener.

Found a bull about 10 minutes into opening day, that I thought I heard calling the night before opener walking between the upper aspen patches in this photo:

View attachment 100135

He was on private, so gave a single cow call. He came in steadily walking the entire way and I killed him at about 200 yards. Shot him on the sage flat in the the center of the photo, he died in the right stringer of willows. Too good of a bull to pass, even though the hunt was over in about 20-30 minutes of hunting. Can't complain, I had 2 great bull moose hunts in Wyoming and got to hunt them in 2 different units.

View attachment 100136

Congrats on a outsanding bull.