If I'm reading this right, this bill is to increase the percentage of licenses going to residents and significantly reduces the percentage of tags going to non residents. If so, you residents need to be contacting your legislative reps and asking for their support. Looks like they're also including a small resident fee increase for all tags. I imagine the Wyoming Guides & Outfitters will be paying big bucks to get this bill defeated.
HB0112 Big & Trophy Game Licenses
- Thread starter Triple BB
- Start date
libidilatimmy
Veteran member
libidilatimmy
Veteran member
I also see that HB0031 (discussed in an earlier thread here) which was the bill introduced for the 10% across the board license fee increase failed introduction.
NDHunter
Veteran member
libidilatimmy
Veteran member
Elkoholic307
Banned
libidilatimmy
Veteran member
I think this bill would mostly impact the NR deer and antelope licence allocation. I'd say that somewhere in the 75-25 or 80-20 range is most beneficial to all parties involved.
Umpqua Hunter
Veteran member
If there is a reduction in nonresident licenses, one of many issues that will have to be dealt with is the substantial fees the state has taken in over the past 8 years for preference points. The point system has created an expectation that a certain amount of tags are available and the applicants are making an investment towards those tags. For a non-resident applying for points for sheep, moose, elk, deer and antelope, they have been investing $295 per year to accrue points.
One personal example, for moose, I have invested $675 in points. I am already concerned that I may not draw the tag in my lifetime, a further reduction in tags will pretty much make that a certainty.
One personal example, for moose, I have invested $675 in points. I am already concerned that I may not draw the tag in my lifetime, a further reduction in tags will pretty much make that a certainty.
Last edited:
Colorado Cowboy
Super Moderator
Don't suppose that a NR hunter with lots of extra cash and a good lawyer might have the same idea!
Colorado Cowboy
Super Moderator
I don't see how most of the western states could survive without the NR money. They have viewed the NR as a cash cow for 30 years or more and the way the system is set up in most of these states they can't survive w/o their money!!!
libidilatimmy
Veteran member
If I'm understanding this correctly, this bill will cut millions in revenue for the WGF from the NR deer and antelope License sales side. An organization that's currently whining about not having enough money to support itself. Seriously doubt it flies.
Last edited:
shootbrownelk
Veteran member
Topgun 30-06
Banned
The problem with a Bill like that is that all the Legislator that backs it looks at is appeasing his constituents and not at the real ramifications it might have. NRs put in 80% of what the G&F takes in for license fees, along with PPs and the Conservation Stamp. To even draw up a Bill like that without something to go along with it and make up the huge difference in cash loss is ridiculous. One guy on another website said to just pass it and we'll work out the details later, LOL! That sounds like when Nancy Pelosi got up before the press and told all the Legislators in DC to just pass the Obamacare Bill and they could read what's in it later. You know where that got us!
UH---That is another whole argument to start messing with a system where many have thousands of dollars invested in PPs, application fees, license cost in states that make you buy one just to buy a PP, etc. If a state, in this case Wyoming, were to make a major change in the system that people figure is not going to change, then a reasonable alternative needs to be made to give them a refund of their money they have in the system or some such thing to make a person whole.
UH---That is another whole argument to start messing with a system where many have thousands of dollars invested in PPs, application fees, license cost in states that make you buy one just to buy a PP, etc. If a state, in this case Wyoming, were to make a major change in the system that people figure is not going to change, then a reasonable alternative needs to be made to give them a refund of their money they have in the system or some such thing to make a person whole.
Last edited:
Umpqua Hunter
Veteran member
Yeppers TG…to further that thought, if a state simply gave you a point each year you applied for a tag and didn't get it, that would be one thing. However, when a state charges a significant fee, for a "point only" option, that offering implies that those points have future value and you are building preference for future year's draws. As you said, if tag numbers were substantially reduced, I would certainly want to receive a refund for points purchased for my wife, my children and I.
I agree UH, if it went 90/10 for sheep/moose from where it was before I believe a case for fraud could be made against the state and probably statistically proven unless they changed the whole system to a random draw with points (each point just gives you an extra chance or squared them like Montana), but to change it to 90/10 and still keep only the top point holders drawing would be fraud for everyone else that invested in the model.
NDHunter
Veteran member
Where's Zim? He's usually good for some comments when it comes to states and how they run their preference/bonus point shenanigans. 