Finally out in the sunlight.
http://legisweb.state.wy.us/2015/Introduced/SF0069.pdf
Between Moose & Sheep it currently costs a NR's 203.00 per year in non-refundable fees to apply and gain a point for each. That's every year, whether or not you draw a tag. From my perspective, I'd have to take that money out of Wyoming and put it to better use on a raffle in another state.
Of course, for fear of losing these millions in PP fees from NR's, WYGFD might choose to reduce (or eliminate) the percentage of tags allocated to max point holders. And wouldn't that be a happy thought for all the guys who've been waiting 15-20 years, paid in all that money, only to now have the rug yanked from under them?
Funny part is that while this will eliminate most NR from ever drawing a Wyoming Sheep or Moose tag, at the same time it's benefit to residents will be tiny. The ressies may not even get 1% better draw odds, when averaged across all resident point classes.
Sooner or later you know something is coming...
By taking deer, elk, and antelope out of the Bill this year it' is pretty sure to pass. People need to realize that the G&F has nothing to do with this and the Bill does not change anything other than the 80/20 to 90/10 split. The other possibility may or may not be able to be done by the Commission without any legislative action.
It will also cost the DFG a bunch in lost revenue from NR tag fees. For every NR sheep tag they stop issuing, they lose $2,266 and they gain only $122 from the resident who gets the tag instead. So that's a net loss of $2,144 per tag. WY currently allocates ~ 60 tags to NR's. By cutting the NR quota by 60%, they'll sell 24 NR tags. That's a revenue loss of $77,184, not counting the tens of thousands of dollars they'll lose because almost no one will buy a point anymore.
Then there's the lost revenue WY outfitters and merchants will lose when all of a sudden 60% fewer sheep hunts are booked.
Then add in the lost revenue from moose and goat tags and hunts and the financial impact gets much higher still.
NvaGvUp's Link
You're limited to 140 characters, so be short and to the point!
"Kyle:
Thank you for the email. We are working diligently to make sure that this bill is defeated. We have a full time lobbyist who is monitoring this bill along with four of our board members who are currently in Cheyenne working on this as well. If you would like to contact the sponsors of this bill and express your concerns directly to them, please do so. Below is their contact information.
Senator Larry Hicks: [email protected]
Senator Paul Barnard: [email protected]
Representative Eric Barlow: [email protected]
Representative Stan Blake: [email protected]
Representative John Freeman: [email protected]
Representative Allen Jaggi: [email protected]
Representative Bunky Loucks: [email protected]
This bill was first introduced last year so we have been working hard to make sure everybody is aware of this bill and the ramifications it will have on the non-resident hunter and the economy for the state of Wyoming. WYOGA established the Wyoming Hunter Defense Fund (WHDF), www.wyominghunterdefensefund.com. Please visit this website as the WHDF was organized to maintain the ability of sportsmen to access their hunting opportunities in Wyoming. The WHDF will work to conserve and protect wildlife habitats and to educate the business community and residents of Wyoming as to the financial contributions made by sportsmen to Wyoming’s economy. Feel free to make a monetary donation to help fight these legislative issues.
Best regards,
Laurie Marcovitz, Administrator
Wyoming Outfitters & Guides Association
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this the same WYOGA whose lobby is most responsible for the requirement that NR's require a guide to hunt big and trophy game in wilderness areas, which RESTRICTS "the ability of sportsmen to access their hunting opportunities in Wyoming."? Never mind.
As a resident that has no sheep points, and has already used my moose points, this bill has absolutely no effect on me. However, as has already been pointed out, it DOES potentially have tons of negative impact on a lot of people. Doesn't matter whether it's this bill, or anything else for that matter, changing rules in the middle of the ballgame simply isn't right. I hope there's enough public outcry to get this shot down.
Kyle it's more like "hundreds of thousands". I hope somebody lobbying the legislators will do the math, because the potential loss in revenue is large. There are currently almost 8000 NR's in the points game for Sheep, and over 9000 NR's in the game for Moose. Let's say only 1/3 of those drop out after this bill passes. So doing the math....a NR Moose app costs 89.00 (75.00 for PP + 14.00 for app fee) multiplied by 3000 less apps, this comes to a possible 267,000.00 loss in revenue. Then for Sheep, a NR app costs 114.00 (100.00 for PP + 14.00 for app fee) multiplied by 2700, this comes to 307,800.00.
For a total potential loss of about $575,000.00.
And that's just in app/point fees, not counting the losses in high-dollar NR tag sales.
The departments don't get the app. fee. That goes to the vendor. But the rest or your point is spot on, except I would wager a LOT more than 1/3 will drop out altogether.
I suppose in some perverse way, I might actually benefit if the bill passes, as I'd guess a large number of guys in my point group (15) would simply drop out. So while it would extend the number of years it will take me to get max points, when I do get there, I'd be competing with a fraction of the number of guys who otherwise would still be in my point group.
"Nonresident allocation of game licenses. 15LSO-0298, 1.1 SF0069 FISCAL NOTE FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 NON-ADMINISTRATIVE IMPACT Anticipated Revenue (decrease): GAME & FISH FUND $0 ($169,894) ($169,894) Source of revenue decrease: The number of licenses available for purchase by nonresidents will be reduced as a result of this bill. Nonresident license fees are set at a higher rate than resident license fees and therefore will cause a reduction in total revenue generated. License fees for the species identified in the bill are established for residents and nonresidents respectively as follows; $112/$1,402 moose, $117/$2,252 bighorn sheep, $36/$240 ewe/lamb, $122/$2,152 mountain goat, $402/$2,502 bison any, $252/$1002 bison female, and $0.00/$0.00 grizzly bear. Assumptions: The Game and Fish Department is assuming that the license quotas available in 2014, (455 moose, 200 bighorn sheep, 4 ewe/lamb, 28 mountain goat, 90 bison any, 225 bison female, and 0 grizzly bear) will remain constant and that due to the high demand of these licenses 100% will be issued in line with the proposed resident/nonresident allocation."
This shows only the revenue lost from tag fees. It does not seem to consider the thousands of current applicants who will stop buying points. As Greg pointed out, that's a far bigger number than is the tag fee number.
So, we have a revenue loss of $170,000 from tag fees alone.
Then assuming 50% of applicants will stop buying points (and I'll bet it will be closer to 90%), the department will lose another $737,500 per year from the drop in preference point purchases just from the sheep and moose applicants!
"Fiscal impact as claimed does not include lost revenue from those who stop buying points. If only 50% stop, another $737,500 is lost!"
It's impossible to say all that needs saying with just 140 characters!
I used exactly 140 characters..."Wyo G&F is already a financially strapped Dept. This is insanity! Loss of revenue does not include those that will discontinue buying PP's."
I encourage everyone to submit your comments on this bill, regardless of your stance. The link Kyle provided makes it very easy. Your comments will go to EVERY state legislator, not just the sponsors.
They surely are, and I've expressed my opposition to them on that issue strongly in the past.
But that doesn't mean we can't agree with them on this issue.
It's pretty sure to pass because a multitude of residents and organizations they belong to are for it and the only reason it didn't pass last year was because the Bill included deer, elk, and antelope. I would suggest rather than just wasting all your money that you put in for PPs all those years that you put in and draw a cow tag with your 13 PPs this year.
Elk are not part of this bill.
Are there cow moose tags?
I took a fine P&Y moose in WY in 2001 with three PP and got it with a max point tag. Then I took a very nice 50" Canadian moose in BC in 2012.
I now have nine PP for moose in WY, but have little interest in actually getting another moose.
If WY changes the rules, I'm outta' here!
Yes, there are at least 7 units that have cow moose tags available in the draw this year and most of them only took a PP or two to draw. I believe the most to draw one was about 7 or 8 PPs, so a person easily draw one with 13PPs if they wanted to get out of the rat race.
I wouldn't start bailing out quite yet. Even if this bill passes and is signed into law, it won't effect this year's draw.
That may be true, but if this Bill goes through he'll end up wanting to use the tag for a cow in 2016 and will have another PP fee to pay this year to do it. 13PPs will probably never draw a bull tag fi this Bill goes through.
Once their foot is in the door to decrease sheep, moose, goat, and bison tags for nonres....guess what will be next? You can bet antelope, deer, and elk will be next!
I was also told,it will not pass
Guess we'll see The guy seemed pretty confident about that
Bill v
They are. See my post above re. the WYOGA.
Sponsor Sen. Larry Hicks, R-Baggs, said the bill would bring Wyoming in line with the limits that other states already impose on nonresident hunters. "It just establishes parity between what we would do in Wyoming if the legislation passed and every other state that has moose, bighorn, mountain goat and bison permits," Hicks said. "Right now, Wyoming issues, as a percentage of the permits, more of those permits to nonresidents than any other state in the nation. Period."
No argument with that logic if we were just starting the PP system. Doing so nearly 20yrs in simply isn't right for those that have been building points all these years.
I've read his comments on this Bill and a lot of others he's sponsored or backed since he was elected and he's about as far from representing the overall sportspersons in Wyoming as there is if you haven't figured that out yet! Yep, all they need to do is have more auction tags for the high rollers to take more tags away from us average Joes and become more like the laughing stock of the west that Utah now is! Maybe they should just call Don Peay up and I'll bet he could straighten up Wyoming just like he did Utah in a heartbeat, LOL!
I noted that based on the number of non-residents who have sheep and/or moose Preference Points, if only 50% stop buying points, the Department will suffer a revenue loss of $782,738. If 75% stop, the number is $1,174,107 annually! My guess is that a lot more than 75% will stop buying points.
You lost me with that one.
WY will suffer a revenue loss of ~ $170,000 from tag fees alone if this bill passes. The loss of revenue from the massive decline in PP sales will likely be over one million dollars in addition to the loss of tag fee money.
The number of tags available to non-residents will not change in 2015 from what it is currently. So if they sell the same number of tags, where's the extra revenue going to come from?
For that to happen, WY would have to sell 366,667 tags!
"Dear Members of the Wyoming legislature;
I am writing to you to express my opposition to SF 0069. While I do not disagree with your intent on this bill - for WY to fall in line with other states on the percentage of sheep and moose tags allocated to non-residents, there are two serious issues with this bill which you may not have considered:
1. The WY Game and Fish Dept. has given you a fiscal analysis on this bill which notes the Dept. will lose $169,894 in revenue annually from the sale of sheep and moose tags if the bill passes. However, there is a far larger revenue loss to the department that will be realized when sheep and moose hunters stop paying $100 and $75 respectively to gain additional preference points.
Going into the 2015 draw, 8,325 non-residents have preference points for Bighorn Sheep and 9,773 have preference points for moose. If just 50% of those applicants stop paying to accumulate points for sheep and moose, the Department will suffer an additional loss of revenue in the amount of $782,738. If 75% stop buying preference points, the Department's revenue loss will grow to $1,174,107. Based on my long history of applying for sheep, moose and other tags across the West, I would suggest that a 75% drop off would be the BEST result the Department would see. I believe a 90% drop off would be far more likely.
Such an unwanted result, of course, is known as "The Law of Unintended Consequences."
2. Since Wyoming began charging for preference points a great many years ago, there was a clear implication that if hunters applied long enough, paid the $100 or $75 fee long enough, and LIVED long enough, they would eventually draw one of these coveted tags.
This bill would pull the rug out from under all of us who believed that and mean that the over-whelming majority of us have been played for fools - sending Wyoming millions upon millions of dollars to accumulate preference points, all for no reason.
Will you send us all our money back if this bill becomes law?
Sincerely,
I'd guarantee you it's not even close to 366,667! The population of WY is just 576,412 as of 2013.
They can apply all they want, but the number of tags will not increase. So there's no additional revenue to the Department.
sureshot,
They'd also have to be crazy to STAY in the game unless they are very near max points now and under age 45-50.
Now some legislators want to back out on that promise.
A Senate committee is holding a hearing on the bill on Tuesday. I wrote to all the committee members and not being limited to 140 characters, sent them a complete letter making the case against this bill. I bcc'd the WYOGA on the letter and they loved it. I also offered to go to Cheyenne to testify if they thought it would be of any help.
There were 30 random and 128 random sheep tags issued to Wyo res in 2014. With 90% of tags going to Wyo res this would change to 36 random and 156 pref pt tags.
Here's another number you all have been waiting for. There were 4844 Wyo residents that applied for sheep tags in 2014. In 2014 the overall odds for a Wyo res to draw a sheep tag was 2.6%. With 90% of the tags going to res it would increase to 3.2% draw odds. That's an increase of 1.4%.
A 1.4% increase in draw odds definitely isn't much to get excited about! More Wyo res will draw tags but the chance of a Wyo res ever drawing a sheep tag in the random draw in their lifetime is dismal! If Wyo res don't already have a bunch of pref pts they may never draw a sheep tag in their lifetime even if there was an increase in res tags.
In case Wyo nonres would like to know there were 6 random and 49 pref pt tags issued to nonres in 2014. With the 10% change the number of nonres tags will be roughly cut in 1/2. There would be 3 random and 18 pref pt tags issued.
The only correction to mention is the number of random draw sheep tags for NR. There were 7 issued in 2014 (there were 8 in 2013). With the passage of this bill, the majority of those are eliminated. If unit quotas don't drop further, NR will squeak out only 2 random tags, at best. There must be a total quota of 40 or more ram tags in a unit to provide ONE random draw tag for NR, once this bill is passed.
Based on the number of NR apps in the random draw last year, the random draw odds would soar to 900:1. In other words.....foggitabottit!
With such poor odds, I'm better off taking the $5,000.00 in fees that I'll save by not applying for Moose & Sheep over the next 25 years, and put it towards an actual hunt. It's truly a no-brainer.
LMAO...No kidding!
Yup.
Under the current scenario, I can expect to be at Max Points in about five years.
Under the proposed scenario, I'm looking at 12-13 years.
Given I'm 66, that's a major and critical difference.
They said the committee is split 2-2 with one member uncommitted and they think some personal testimony, with eye-to-eye contact will be very helpful.
So off I go to Cheyenne at 6:30 AM to offer my testimony.
Damn, at some point I've got to learn to stop raising my hand every time someone asks me to volunteer! lol
On another post attrition was mentioned. To simplify things there has to be more attrition plus tags drawn than new hunters starting out applying or pref pts will continue to creep.
How many Wyo res hunters and their families do you know that currently don't apply for sheep, moose, goat, and bison because they don't think they stand a snowballs chance of ever drawing a tag? I just got an email from a Wyo buddy that stated he would likely start applying his daughter for sheep and moose tags if Wyo goes to a 90/10 split. How many Wyo families do you think share that same opinion?
Doesn't it also make sense that if Wyo res suddenly believe they have a better chance to draw these tags that they will continue applying rather than dropping out (attrition)? There always will be attrition but every year there has been and increase in Wyo res that apply for these high demand tags. If this deal passes don't you think this will be broadcast all over the news and more applicants will start applying for these species than are currently applying?
I guess what I'm trying to say is that if this deal passes draw odds in the random draw for Wyo res may actually decrease due to additional applicants applying and less attrition. Wyo res will be offered a few additional tags that go in the pref pt pool. Those Wyo res with highest pref pts will be the only people that benefit from this. Young and new Wyo resident hunters will have the most to loose! There will be a few additional hunters with close to max pts that will likely draw....however, there will likely be an increase of applicants that have few to no pref pts that may think they all of a sudden have a chance to draw these high demand tags.
From what I see, the 90/10 split could actually come back and kick the Wyo res in the butt!
Be sure and tell Bob Wharff a big Thank You as $FW-Wyo he is taking credit for writing this bill to be presented.
The Cancer of hunting-----$FW ~~
Good luck, Robb
Thanks.
This is what I do, because this is where my passion is.
Kyle
I'll give it all I've got!
If we can convince the Senator who's undecided, we'll get'er done!
Not being a Utah resident, I can't accurately weigh in on SFW.
I have tremendous faith and trust in people like Robb who despise them. Yet at the same time, I have tremendous faith and trust in two people who praise what they do.
In this case, I don't care what SFW WY thinks about this legislation. I only know that I oppose it and that I believe my position represents 99% of the WY non-resident hunters.
We are in the same point pool...you are definitely speaking for me on this issue.
Not all draw systems need to be the same or be equally unfair to non residents. Their system right now is plenty unfair to non residents but there is just enough hope if you stick with it that you will put in that $100 every year. Any worse odds it will make more sense not to send WY any money at all
Sandbrew
And what would you base a lawsuit on when there are changes to PP systems in the various states on a regular basis and the courts have ruled each individual state can run it's system however they like?!
I was able to get very detailed data re. the number of NR's who get their points via applying for a license and the number who simply buy points. In total, the WY G&F Dept. took in over $1.3M last year just from moose and sheep points. Add in the $170,000 they'll lose in tags and the potential loss of revenue is ~ $1.5M.
The Commission cannot change tag fee prices in WY. Only the legislature can. That will make it more difficult to raise tag fees to cover the loss. A few years ago a bill was introduced that would raise resident license fees by a very small amount and the residents fought it tooth and nail. The bill did not pass.
I think John's point about a lawsuit is based on a breech of promise position. A case for false advertising could also be made.
The state has, for twenty years, implied that if we'd just buy points, eventually we'd get into the max points group and we'd get a tag. This bill will break that promise and will mean NRs will have sent the state millions upon millions of dollars over the years, only to have the state break their promise and keep the money to boot.
"In case Wyo nonres would like to know there were 6 random and 49 pref pt tags issued to nonres in 2014. With the 10% change the number of nonres tags will be roughly cut in 1/2. There would be 3 random and 18 pref pt tags issued."
While the PP number is probably correct, it may actually end up at 21 and random at zero. If I understand it correctly, for a unit to have a random tag, there has to be 4 NR tags, which then drops one tag to the random pool and leaves 3 in the PP pool.
If the pool drops by as much as it does, the random pool is going to disappear.
If the random pool disappears, then the people who hope for a chance of drawing, even though it's less than 1%, will have zero reason to apply.
Even at one or two tags, all of us lower point folks are going to put in for it which will make horrible odds turn into ridiculous odds; odds that are not worth the kind of money that we have to fork over to apply, much less borrowing the state of Wyoming 1700/2100 dollars a year for a few months while they perform their draws.
GL Kyle and thanx for time, money, and effort.
Once Wyoming figures out in a few years that their NR PP cash flow has dried up, I could foresee them changing the PP/random split to 50/50 in an effort to attract applicants back into the draw. Of course this would further de-value preference points for BOTH non-residents and residents in the top tiers. Like I stated above....be careful what you ask for!
Breach of contract is a legal cause of action in which a binding agreement or bargained-for exchange is not honored by one or more of the parties to the contract by non-performance or interference with the other party's performance. If the party does not fulfill his contractual promise, or has given information to the other party that he will not perform his duty as mentioned in the contract or if by his action and conduct he seems to be unable to perform the contract, he is said to breach the contract.
I just now got an e-mail from the WYGOA's lobbyist as follows:
"I spoke with Bernadine Craft today. She's definitely a no vote. She's impressed by the flood of emails she's been getting telling her to vote against the bill. My vote count is zero for five against. Committee of 5."
This is not the same committee I'll be testifying before tomorrow, but this committee will be one of the committees that will hear the bill.
E-MAIL the WY Legislature and get your hunting buddies to do the same!
Kyle
Glad to hear that and even if you stay in a Holiday Inn Express you're way off on this being able to be cited as a breach of contract, LOL!
Sandbrew's Link
I was actually one of 8 named class representative to a 200,000+ person class action lawsuit that won a $42.5 million dollar settlement against a Fortune 500 company that was paid out. Our lawyers made $7.5 million they might at least take my phone call and maybe offer some "free" advice.
I do think the best course of action is calling and contacting Wyoming Senators at this point. See the link.
From my hotel room.....
Sandbrew
And every year, after the draws are made there are several heated threads on the provincial hunting site about how we should go to a PP system. And when the dust settles, it is pretty much agreed the this is a reasonably fair system. Of course the odd guy gets drawn many times and at the other end another seldom ever gets a tag. But that's pure luck, good and bad.
Every year I put in about six draws and every year I have the same chance of getting drawn as everybody else. And at $7 a pop it's a cheap dream until the results come out.
I would hate it if I knew for sure I didn't have a hope for five, eight or fifteen years.
I just got back to my room from a strategy dinner with the WYGOA guys, which included the lobbyist.
The committee we're testifying to tomorrow IS the committee I referenced above.
Two days ago the vote looked to be 2-2 with one more on the fence. Now it's zero 'ayes' and five 'nays.' One of the new 'nays' was a co-sponsor of the bill! But now that he's seeing the full impact of the bill, he's switched his position.
We're hoping for a complete rout of the other side. If the bill dies in committee, it's dead unless it gets re-written and re-introduced by January 28.
Kyle
"I'll be one of those applicants that will drop out. I got in late and don't count on ever drawing a PP tag. For me the desire to hunt these animals is high enough to justify the cost of the PP for the random pool."
Preference points are of no value in the Random Draw. Everyone gets one ball in the hopper regardless of their number of Preference points.
Thank you for your time on this!
From:
A NR with 13 moose and sheep points.
Many thanks for jumping on this on behalf of all of us NR's. We are with you.
I was wondering all along somehow if YOU could make some great comments/point of views while there and somehow change some of the ayes minds...YES you did!!...and a big THANK YOU again!
I'm emailing all the Senators as we speak with the following:
Dear Senator,
I ask you to look at bill SF0069 currently being discussed by committee.
The issue at hand is changing the standard and time tested allocation percentage of certain big game hunt permits from 80/20 (resident to non-resident percentage) to 90/10.
My position is that there are thousands of non-residents that have been led to believe that 'if we continued to buy annual preference points, we would be all but guaranteed a shot at moose/sheep/mountain goat tag in our lifetime.' We have dutifully played the game by the rules for years.
The bill currently on the table essentially makes that understanding a pipe dream. The reality is that if this bill gets out of committee and passes, thousands of non-residents like myself will no longer apply for these species at a cost of easily $1,500,000.00 in lost annual revenue to WY. This loss will come as a result of non-residents not having a reasonable chance at these species and dropping out of the draw process all together. The lost revenue will be seen in: less tag applicants (point buyers), less non-resident tags actually being purchased (at a fee structure approximately 10x what a WY resident pays), and the untold cost to WY businesses who rely on incoming non-resident hunters (outfitter, restaurants, lodging, suppliers, etc).
Statistically, WY residents will benefit by approximately 1% better odds if that extra percentage of becomes available to them. This hardly seems worth the high cost of implementing this bill.
Lastly, the issue for me is that WY had established a set of rules of which all non-residents have abided by and participated in, only to find out that rules might change and what we've been led to believe was a lie. WY is better than this.
Thank you for your consideration.
TOPGUN (7751 posts) Click to EMail TOPGUN Click to send private message to TOPGUN Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster Jan-20-15, 07:48 AM (MST) 176. "RE: Senate File 69: allocation on Big Game License (change to 10% for NR)" Word on the street now is that the 2 Committee members that were going to vote Yea have changed their minds after being advised of the huge amount of revenue the G&F may lose when a lot of NRs quit buying PPs and drop out. So now it looks like the sure "FACT" that this would pass may go down 0-5 in Committee after the actual hearing today!
Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
junior (596 posts) Click to EMail junior Click to send private message to junior Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster Jan-20-15, 08:27 AM (MST) 177. "RE: Senate File 69: allocation on Big Game License (change to 10% for NR)" The huge amount of revenue the G&F may lose when a lot of NRs quit buying PPs and drop out.
Ramifications!
This may happen either way!
Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
wolfhunter (406 posts) Click to EMail wolfhunter Click to send private message to wolfhunter Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster Jan-20-15, 08:29 AM (MST) 178. "RE: Senate File 69: allocation on Big Game License (change to 10% for NR)" A bunch of us already have first hand knowledge Buzz's "FACT'S" are wrong.... Just look at what he says about wolves!!!
Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
TOPGUN (7751 posts) Click to EMail TOPGUN Click to send private message to TOPGUN Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster Jan-20-15, 08:38 AM (MST) 179. "RE: Senate File 69: allocation on Big Game License (change to 10% for NR)" Another FACT---One of the two people on Committee that have changed from Yea to Nay was one of the Bill sponsors, LOL!
Remove | Alert Edit | Rep
Hicks is a hunter and won't change his mind because he's for anything that will benefit himself, as shown by some of the other Bills he's introduced or backed in the short time he's been in Cheyenne. I have no idea on Jaggi though, but he may well be along the same lines.
One 'aye,' four 'nays!'
Nice job ..... thank you
Watch for this bill to keep reappearing.
What's a jackalope act have to do with wild sheep and hunters?
Jason Stafford's Link
While doing so, he was flat out wrong on one issue and clearly 'ahem,' "misspoke" on another, which I duly noted for when it was my turn to speak.
Following him, four guys spoke in support of the bill, one of whom was BULELK1's *pal*, Bob Warff from WY SFW.
While listening to them I had two thoughts: 1) "Is this all they've got? Four people?" We were expecting dozens, and; 2) "They haven't got a clue what they're talking about." I was almost embarrassed for them.
Then it was our turn. Sy Gillliland, the lead guy on this for WYOGA layed the framework, then I followed with a few points of my own, starting with a debunking of what Hicks and his supporters had said:
1. Hicks was asked by a Committee member how WY's point pricing compared with other western states' point pricing. Believe it or not, Hicks said it was comparable or maybe even better and pointed to Arizona and Nevada as examples.
As politely as I could, I noted he was misleading the Committee and that his claim was bogus. He'd claimed the two states mentioned charged $160 (AZ) and $140 (NV) for points. I pointed out that those charges were for LICENSES, and if you bought the licenses, you could apply for eight or nine different species in those states and the cost for a point was minimal - basically what the internet company that runs the system charges the states to do so. The licenses also allow you to hunt everything else those states have to hunt. I was looking at both Hicks and the Chair while I said this and while the Chair was smiling, Hicks was definitely not! I think he realized he'd been outed.
2. Next I went after his claim, which his four minions also made, that implied that because WY residents often hired guides, hunted more days than NR's and scouted more than NR's, that was an economic benefit to the state that would offset the lost economic benefit non-residents bring.
Trying really hard to avoid noting such a claim was proof of the school systems failure to teach even basic economic literacy, I noted that money spent by residents on outfitters, sporting goods, etc., was money that could therefore not be spent on home improvements, car repairs, taking the family out to dinner, etc. by residents, therefore creating NO net benefit to the state, while money spent by non-residents was NEW money and DID offer economic benefits to WY.
3. Then I went through the Preference Point revenues and suggested they would plunge if the bill passed because guys would stop buying points. I pointed to the huge increase in the number of years it would take to draw a tag if the bill passed and pointed to my own situation that under the current system, I should be able to draw a sheep tag in about 15 years at worst, while if the bill passed, it would take me 40 years when I'd be 106 years old and making a joke about how that might me a bit more challenging for me.
At any rate, the bill is now dead unless it gets re-written and re-introduced by January 28. Given how badly it lost today, I don't see that happening.
I had to leave after I testified in order to get to DIA on time, but several others also testified against the bill, including, I believe, the Cattlemen's Assn, the Woolgrowers Assn. and the WY Restaurant Assn.
Strange that the $FW were there. I wonder if there is some back door yellow dog deal to take away some NR tags to put up for auction to help fund WG&F.
Need Charlie Daniels playing in the background...
Thanks for the effort Nva and thanks Bob for bringing it to everyone's attention
I finished by noting that WY had had the 25% quota for NR's since 1949 and had clearly established a precedent. Then, when they started charging $100 for a point and giving us very detailed updated data of point pools and the draws each year, that was a clear signal that if we hung in there, bought points and lived long enough, we would eventually draw.
That, I said, was an implied promise, even though not legally binding.
I asked, "Is changing the system legal?" and answered. "Of course." Then I asked, "Is it ethical?" and said, "That's your call."
Then I noted that just because something is legal, does not make it ethical.
The WY GFD had a warden sitting right behind me next to the GFD Director and I asked him, "Is taking a shot at a running antelope at 500 yards legal?" then said, "Yes it is." Then I turned back to the committee and asked, "Would it be ethical?" and answered, "Not in my book."
Then I mentioned the book, "Cowboy Ethics, The Code of the West," held up my copy, and pointed to Rule #6, which is, "When You Make a Promise, Keep It!"
I finished by pointing out that in 2010, the WY Legislature itself had adopted "The Cowboy Code of the West" as their Ethics Policy!
OUCH!
I thanked them, asked if they had questions, then sat down and shut up. ;^)
"SWEET AWESOME work Kyle. We owe you one. Buy you a beer or 6 next year at the sheep show Brad"
Sounds good to me!
Thanks!
"Thanks Kyle- Put me down for a free keg for you! Sandbrew"
Works for me, John!
PM me and I'll send you my mailing address! LOL!
Thanks job well done and on such short notice
Sadly, NR's did not "flood the legislature like we did with this bill that went down today."
I was the ONLY non-resident at today's hearing.
What's more, the change you mention will in no way lower the number of NR's who get tags. The overall quota for NRs will not change.
Please get off your high horse just because you testified and excuse me, but flooding the Legislature with phone calls, emails, and letters like many of us did had just as much to do with the Bill being defeated today as your testimony, which was also excellent, but not the only reason the Bill failed! You do realize that it appeared as though yesterday before the actual hearing that the Bill was probably going down don't you? I also said nothing to the effect that 149 will lower any tag quotas, so I don't have any idea why you even mentioned that. However, read what WapitiBob stated in his post and tell me you'll be happy to pay those higher prices now that many will be forced into when HBO149 passes and 20% more of those tags go to a higher price!
What a bunch of hypocrites.
I'd mentioned the huge numbers of e-mails earlier in the thread. But when someone mentions flooding the legislature the way it was mentioned in the post I referenced, it generally refers to people showing up at the capitol.
ABQBW,
Actually, 2-3 years ago, I did get the CA DFW commission to raise their NR sheep tag limit from one tag to 'up to 10%.'
Forums like this are awesome for spreading the word about threats to our common interests. Let's keep solidified and work together in the future against the many obsticles that are sure to come our way.
Thank you for your dedication to our cause.
Fortunately, my schedule is pretty flexible, so I was able to go on very short notice.
As was suggested what might happen above, the bill will be re-introduced on Monday in the WY House but in a significantly modified way.
NR sheep and moose quotas have been removed from the new bill, leaving only Bison, Grizzly and Mt. Goats.
Based on what my sources tell me, the modified bill will not even get to Committee based on the late timing and the limited number of days the WY legislature has left in this session. In addition, it now has only two sponsors, one in the Senate and one in the House, which is very lame support.
Next year, the WY session is limited to budget issues only, so we're safe until at least the 2017 session.
I told him that a huge majority of NR's, including me, thought the policy was very self-serving, was horrible PR for the assn. and suggested it also offered little if any benefit to WY outfitters.
To my great surprise, he agreed with me 100%. He agreed getting rid of the requirement would have little if any effect on WY outfitters.
He noted that the last time this came up in the WY legislature, the WYOGA was shocked that the opposition came not from outfitter, but rather from county sheriffs across the state.
I posited that must have something to do with the sheriffs' departments having to foot the bill for search and rescue, then questioned if that was really a factor.
He responded that the sheriffs had testified that their search and rescue costs went up 400% during the hunting season and the sheriffs' departments had to absorb 100% of those costs. He didn't have any data re. the number of residents vs. non-residents that needed S&R services, but I would guess it's pro-rata between NRs and residents.
It was the sheriffs that claimed the 400%, not the outfitter association.
Even with that statistic, make a nominal S&R fee mandatory and be done with the nonsense.
Bill,
Actually I raised that very point in my conversation. "Why not just add a mandatory S&R fee to the licenses or tags?" What he said was that 'mandatory' anything doesn't fly well with Wyoming residents, esp. if they have to pay for it. He pointed to a couple of things to demonstrate that.
Then make it mandatory for all NR's...
Or make it optional with a disclaimer that clarifies 'those that fund this S&R are covered/protected against liability of fees in case of S&R need. Those that opt out are subject to potential costs relating to getting their butts out of trouble...?'
Present it as an option on any NR tag application. The fees could be dumped into a general pool or to fund some sort of insurance policy, etc.
Are saying the sheriffs presented false data to the legislature?
Bill,
I agree. I also think anyone who puts themselves in a position where they need Search and Rescue should foot the bill for it.
Funny Colorado, Montana, Idaho, and New Mexico don't have these horrible problems with so many NRs getting lost.
It's mandatory, them sorry SOB's! /sarc off.
I think you probably missed what I posted above about them not having the numbers on residents vs. non-residents who need S&R help.
"He didn't have any data re. the number of residents vs. non-residents that needed S&R services, but I would guess it's pro-rata between NRs and residents."
A few years ago the WY legislature tried to raise resident license fees by something like $5 and the residents went ballistic. The bill did not pass.
Not all wilderness in WY is the same. Other than the NW part of the state, most of the other wilderness areas are much smaller, thereby closer to roads and civilization, and do not begin to have the local relief and elevations of those in the NW.
Think about it. Would you rather get lost or badly injured in the Snowy range or in the Tetons?
"The topic was the requirement that NR's had to hire guides to hunt in wilderness areas."
I know I wrote a letter long ago when points were $7...Didn't get more than a 'Egh' on it! LoL