There is another thought that wasn't mentioned. I understand the argument to charge for the Big 3 for preference points. When you calculated the additional revenue that would be generated if they charged for a preference point for each of those species, you didn't take into account that some of those people wouldn't have applied had they been charged an additional $40 or $50. Personally, I have been applying for deer and elk to build points for a few years. If it was the old system or the new system, I still would have applied for deer and elk regardless, but since the new system only charges $3 per species for moose, sheep, and goat, I went ahead and bought a point. I know that most likely I wont ever draw one of those tags, but I'm ok with donating $3 for the chance. If it was a $50 preference point fee, I might only pick up a moose point, or no points at all.
I think you would reduce the additional applications that were submitted by some percentage by charging for the preference points, but obviously they cost more money, so the money generated would be more.
For example.
11,451 additional NR people applied for Moose this year than last year. Of those 11,451 people that applied, Lets say only 20% would have still applied if they charged $40 for a preference point that did not have a previous years fishing or big game license. And maybe 50% of the applicants wouldn't have even applied.
That would be an additional $91,608 from preference points. (.2 x 11,451 x $40) but reducing the application fees by $17,176.
Those are just complete guesses with no data to back any of it up. I was just giving an example of how the numbers would be skewed in more ways that were previously stated. If my example is anywhere close to what could happen, it looks like a better scenario.
Just my thoughts.
I think you would reduce the additional applications that were submitted by some percentage by charging for the preference points, but obviously they cost more money, so the money generated would be more.
For example.
11,451 additional NR people applied for Moose this year than last year. Of those 11,451 people that applied, Lets say only 20% would have still applied if they charged $40 for a preference point that did not have a previous years fishing or big game license. And maybe 50% of the applicants wouldn't have even applied.
That would be an additional $91,608 from preference points. (.2 x 11,451 x $40) but reducing the application fees by $17,176.
Those are just complete guesses with no data to back any of it up. I was just giving an example of how the numbers would be skewed in more ways that were previously stated. If my example is anywhere close to what could happen, it looks like a better scenario.
Just my thoughts.
Last edited: