WY HB124 transferring preference points
- Thread starter BuzzH
- Start date
When I first heard of this idea, I almost laughed, thinking how strange it is. Still trying to figure the logic behind the idea, and at the same time giving thanks that some Montana legislator is not trying to introduce the same thing here.
I assume this bill would only apply to moose, goat, and sheep. If it applies to all species, call me lucky.
If applied to all species, this bill would make it so easy for me to get some of the best hunts Wyoming has to offer. My son is loaded with Wyoming points, having max in deer and elk, and almost max with antelope. My wife has a pile of points for deer and antelope. And if this passes, by some strange accident, she will be loading up on elk points.
I only wish my wife and I could have been able to conceive more kids, so I could really load up on the points. Having medical issues that restrict us to only one child is a discriminatory under a law such as this. Hopefully you will see my discrimination comment as an attempt at humor and as being as far out in the weeds as the bill itself.
I have to be reading this bill wrong. It makes no sense to me. Not sure what it accomplishes.
I have been reading the posts here and elsewhere, trying to figure out what the motivation and benefit could be for such a program. It escapes me. Hopefully someone here can explain it.
I can see allowing the transfer of a tag to your minor child. If you want to do that, sounds like a good way to try get them into hunting, at the expense of your own points. That is a lot different than loading up the points to one family member.
Maybe I am just a well-practiced schemer, so I can see the abuse such a program can have to provide more hunting opportunity. Maybe it is my CPA training that causes me to look at government legislation, as I do tax laws, and find ways to benefit from such legislation. The CPA business is living proof that no matter how complex you make something, lots of people will find ways to take advantage of it in manners legislators would have never dreamed of.
If states start passing stuff like this, I might retire my CPA certificate, get out the tax planning business, and start a "tag planning" business.
Sorry to make fun of this Buzz, as I know it does have some major impacts if passed. Just seems hard to fathom as a realistic idea, given the obvious abuses it can spawn, and my first response is always humor.
I assume this bill would only apply to moose, goat, and sheep. If it applies to all species, call me lucky.
If applied to all species, this bill would make it so easy for me to get some of the best hunts Wyoming has to offer. My son is loaded with Wyoming points, having max in deer and elk, and almost max with antelope. My wife has a pile of points for deer and antelope. And if this passes, by some strange accident, she will be loading up on elk points.
I only wish my wife and I could have been able to conceive more kids, so I could really load up on the points. Having medical issues that restrict us to only one child is a discriminatory under a law such as this. Hopefully you will see my discrimination comment as an attempt at humor and as being as far out in the weeds as the bill itself.
I have to be reading this bill wrong. It makes no sense to me. Not sure what it accomplishes.
I have been reading the posts here and elsewhere, trying to figure out what the motivation and benefit could be for such a program. It escapes me. Hopefully someone here can explain it.
I can see allowing the transfer of a tag to your minor child. If you want to do that, sounds like a good way to try get them into hunting, at the expense of your own points. That is a lot different than loading up the points to one family member.
Maybe I am just a well-practiced schemer, so I can see the abuse such a program can have to provide more hunting opportunity. Maybe it is my CPA training that causes me to look at government legislation, as I do tax laws, and find ways to benefit from such legislation. The CPA business is living proof that no matter how complex you make something, lots of people will find ways to take advantage of it in manners legislators would have never dreamed of.
If states start passing stuff like this, I might retire my CPA certificate, get out the tax planning business, and start a "tag planning" business.
Sorry to make fun of this Buzz, as I know it does have some major impacts if passed. Just seems hard to fathom as a realistic idea, given the obvious abuses it can spawn, and my first response is always humor.
Zim
Well-known member
"I have been reading the posts here and elsewhere, trying to figure out what the motivation and benefit could be for such a program. It escapes me. Hopefully someone here can explain it."
It's very easy to explain. Either the legislator who introduced the bill has been buying points for his non-hunting wife and kids, brothers & sisters, or he has a wealthy campaign contributor who has been buying points for his non-hunting wife and kids, brothers & sisters. Pretty much that simple. That is how politics works.
It's very easy to explain. Either the legislator who introduced the bill has been buying points for his non-hunting wife and kids, brothers & sisters, or he has a wealthy campaign contributor who has been buying points for his non-hunting wife and kids, brothers & sisters. Pretty much that simple. That is how politics works.
Zim
Well-known member
I emailed all the committee members this morning to object, and already got this reply from Rep. John Freeman.
"The bill was laid back this morning and I doubt that it will come out again this session."
"The bill was laid back this morning and I doubt that it will come out again this session."
Topgun 30-06
Active member
BigFin---This Bill, as written, included all species of big game animals. In effect, if it passed you could be doing Wyoming shows for about a year with no worry by jumping ahead of the line in a lot of units if all your kin have the PPs you stated!!!
BuzzH
Well-known member
Just got back from Cheyenne, and was in the committee meeting where I testified against the preference point transfer bill.
There was discussion whether to kill this bill out-right or have some interim discussion. They decided to just "lay back" the bill, just like Zim said.
There was only one person who was in favor of the bill, and even the bill sponsor made the recommendation that more discussion and research was needed before it should be considered.
I will also let everyone know that 3 of the committee members commented that they were pounded with emails/comments on this bill as well as SF085 (establishing preference points for Resident elk, deer, and antelope).
Not sure why that would be the case???
I really appreciate anyone that took the time to comment on this bill, bad legislation needs to be dealt with. More importantly, I want to thank Randy for having a board where this kind of information can be exchanged.
I know hunters routinely feel like their comments are not being heard, or dont matter,..but I can tell you thats simply not true.
We need to all be as pro-active as we can be.
There was discussion whether to kill this bill out-right or have some interim discussion. They decided to just "lay back" the bill, just like Zim said.
There was only one person who was in favor of the bill, and even the bill sponsor made the recommendation that more discussion and research was needed before it should be considered.
I will also let everyone know that 3 of the committee members commented that they were pounded with emails/comments on this bill as well as SF085 (establishing preference points for Resident elk, deer, and antelope).
Not sure why that would be the case???
I really appreciate anyone that took the time to comment on this bill, bad legislation needs to be dealt with. More importantly, I want to thank Randy for having a board where this kind of information can be exchanged.
I know hunters routinely feel like their comments are not being heard, or dont matter,..but I can tell you thats simply not true.
We need to all be as pro-active as we can be.
ihuntelk
Member
As Buzz posted, it does make a difference when legislators hear from hunters. Especially if it is done an informed and well versed request.
Dang, now I am going to have to redraft the white board for this season.
Dang, now I am going to have to redraft the white board for this season.
The Hedgehog
Well-known member
Larry Hicks is a friend of mine and I've shared many campfires with him while hunting. That said, I don't like the idea of transferring a license or preference points to anybody but a youth. I also think states like MT and WY that have Moose, Sheep, Goat and Bison permits should be once in a lifetime.
However, why do the residents of Wyoming not want a preference point system for the limited quota hunts?
However, why do the residents of Wyoming not want a preference point system for the limited quota hunts?
BuzzH
Well-known member
Lots of reasons, mainly because theres other ways to accomplish the same thing without going to a point system.
Plus, there are damn few limited quota areas where points would actually gain you anything. Those few areas that are truly hard to come by units will take decades to cycle through all those acquiring points for them.
Take a look at mule deer unit 82, elk unit 100, etc.
In elk unit 100...140 permits were issued with 2940 first choice applicants. Those numbers are a bit deceiving as well...since a portion of the 140 go to landowners.
Assuming 10 of those go to landowners...we're lookint at 130 tags available to the public hunters and 2930 first choice applicants. Take out another 25% of the remaining 130 for the random draw...now we're down to around 95ish tags in the preference pool.
We're now in the neighborhood of 30 years to get through the max point pool....we're creating a preference system for that???
If someone starts applying there at 18 years old, the unluckiest in the lot wont have a tag until they're nearly 50.
Not to mention that the investment will be $600 in just preference points. That investment in money is the exact reason that HB124 was introduced...people are feeling an entitlement to their points and wish to pass that investment on to others via transfering points.
Another reason is that most of the point systems adopted, are bastardized down the road and morph into something else. See Montana, Utah, and Wyoming's initial sheep/moose systems for classic examples.
Plus, you systematically put youth and new hunters decades behind in any real chance at drawing some of those tags like unit 100 elk, 82 deer, etc. You reduce their chances of drawing a random tag by 75%+ in all the harder to draw tag areas. In particular when you factor in NR tags and Landowner tags.
Another reason they oppose it, is that a third grader could have introduced the Legislation that Larry drafted. All he did was strike a word or two, and added the word Resident to the exact legislation that was drafted for the Nonresident deer, elk, and antelope preference point system.
Larry also used data from a 2008 "poll" conducted by the WYG&F of only 600 resident hunters. IMO, he largely cherry picked ONE piece of information that he's touting as "a majority of hunters want a preference point system." While he's not lying, he's certainly not telling or seeing the entire truth. While 54% did want a preference point system initiated, they were all over the map in how strongly they favored a PP system. Those that did not want a PP system, a vast majority were STRONGLY OPPOSED.
Finally, none of the Legislature, including Larry, has bothered to really take a look at alternatives to the preference point systems. Theres lots of good ideas floating around that are likely better than a point system. There was also no discussion about a bonus point system VS. a preferene point system.
The resident hunters in Wyoming are having this bill rammed down our throats with no chance to even comment on other options. Also, as someone who reads quite a bit of contract language, there is no room to negotiate within the bill...its written (not by accident) in a very binding way.
I've always been one to measure twice and cut once.
I'm opposed to, and not comfortable with Hicks Legislation. He's not even bothering to measure once...just get the saw and start hacking away...piss on those that dont like my legislation.
Not a good idea if a majority of your constituents are hunters...their advice should be used as an asset to your decisions and legislation. When you quit listening to the ideas of those you represent, you're likely not going to have a long political career, at least at a local level.
To be honest, I'll be the one thats more than happy to show those types the door...and unemployment line.
Plus, there are damn few limited quota areas where points would actually gain you anything. Those few areas that are truly hard to come by units will take decades to cycle through all those acquiring points for them.
Take a look at mule deer unit 82, elk unit 100, etc.
In elk unit 100...140 permits were issued with 2940 first choice applicants. Those numbers are a bit deceiving as well...since a portion of the 140 go to landowners.
Assuming 10 of those go to landowners...we're lookint at 130 tags available to the public hunters and 2930 first choice applicants. Take out another 25% of the remaining 130 for the random draw...now we're down to around 95ish tags in the preference pool.
We're now in the neighborhood of 30 years to get through the max point pool....we're creating a preference system for that???
If someone starts applying there at 18 years old, the unluckiest in the lot wont have a tag until they're nearly 50.
Not to mention that the investment will be $600 in just preference points. That investment in money is the exact reason that HB124 was introduced...people are feeling an entitlement to their points and wish to pass that investment on to others via transfering points.
Another reason is that most of the point systems adopted, are bastardized down the road and morph into something else. See Montana, Utah, and Wyoming's initial sheep/moose systems for classic examples.
Plus, you systematically put youth and new hunters decades behind in any real chance at drawing some of those tags like unit 100 elk, 82 deer, etc. You reduce their chances of drawing a random tag by 75%+ in all the harder to draw tag areas. In particular when you factor in NR tags and Landowner tags.
Another reason they oppose it, is that a third grader could have introduced the Legislation that Larry drafted. All he did was strike a word or two, and added the word Resident to the exact legislation that was drafted for the Nonresident deer, elk, and antelope preference point system.
Larry also used data from a 2008 "poll" conducted by the WYG&F of only 600 resident hunters. IMO, he largely cherry picked ONE piece of information that he's touting as "a majority of hunters want a preference point system." While he's not lying, he's certainly not telling or seeing the entire truth. While 54% did want a preference point system initiated, they were all over the map in how strongly they favored a PP system. Those that did not want a PP system, a vast majority were STRONGLY OPPOSED.
Finally, none of the Legislature, including Larry, has bothered to really take a look at alternatives to the preference point systems. Theres lots of good ideas floating around that are likely better than a point system. There was also no discussion about a bonus point system VS. a preferene point system.
The resident hunters in Wyoming are having this bill rammed down our throats with no chance to even comment on other options. Also, as someone who reads quite a bit of contract language, there is no room to negotiate within the bill...its written (not by accident) in a very binding way.
I've always been one to measure twice and cut once.
I'm opposed to, and not comfortable with Hicks Legislation. He's not even bothering to measure once...just get the saw and start hacking away...piss on those that dont like my legislation.
Not a good idea if a majority of your constituents are hunters...their advice should be used as an asset to your decisions and legislation. When you quit listening to the ideas of those you represent, you're likely not going to have a long political career, at least at a local level.
To be honest, I'll be the one thats more than happy to show those types the door...and unemployment line.
Last edited:
The Hedgehog
Well-known member
Buzz,
With all due respect, I think there's some opinions here. I wouldn't be a fan of transferring any elk, deer, or antelope points of any age. I personally like the preference point system Wyoming has for non-residents and think it's fair. Everybody does have a chance. Also, I think any youth will survive if his odds at 82 deer or 100 elk suck. There's a lot of deer and elk to hunt in Wyoming without a permit like that. Most kids could give a rip about a premium tag. I'd actually be for the transfer bill if it was applicable for just youth, under say, 16, and just for moose and sheep. I wish they'd consider than in MT. When I'm 99 years old, I'd transfer my moose, sheep and goat points to my son. I'm already considering turning my someday AZ elk permit over to my boy if it's something he'd really appreciate. I've earned those points and like that I could give that to him. Just my opinion.
Sounds like Larry needs to rally the troops more, but I'm not seeing him as the evil bastard politician.
With all due respect, I think there's some opinions here. I wouldn't be a fan of transferring any elk, deer, or antelope points of any age. I personally like the preference point system Wyoming has for non-residents and think it's fair. Everybody does have a chance. Also, I think any youth will survive if his odds at 82 deer or 100 elk suck. There's a lot of deer and elk to hunt in Wyoming without a permit like that. Most kids could give a rip about a premium tag. I'd actually be for the transfer bill if it was applicable for just youth, under say, 16, and just for moose and sheep. I wish they'd consider than in MT. When I'm 99 years old, I'd transfer my moose, sheep and goat points to my son. I'm already considering turning my someday AZ elk permit over to my boy if it's something he'd really appreciate. I've earned those points and like that I could give that to him. Just my opinion.
Sounds like Larry needs to rally the troops more, but I'm not seeing him as the evil bastard politician.
Last edited:
WapitiBob
Well-known member
LO tags come from the NR quota, never impacting the Resident side of the draw process.
BuzzH
Well-known member
WapitiBob,
I think you're wrong...Landowner tags are taken FIRST before anyone else gets a tag. From there the remaining tags are distibuted via regulation with the NR, R splits defined by statuate.
Greenhorn,
Glad you like the NonResident point system as it doesnt impact me as a Resident. Montana's system sure worked well too...so well they had to implement a change to that before their system was even 10 years old.
Its tough to get anyone to look at the downside of preference systems when all involved have only $$$ and the delusion that they'll someday get a tag they want in mind. Not surprising in the ME, ME, ME culture.
However, just because a NR likes the current system, that doest mean that the Resident system has to mirror the NR Preference point system. If you read the legislation that Larry introduced, it doesnt give the WYG&F, Commission, or Resident hunters any room to negotiate a different system. The language is very binding, and thats not by accident...and IMO, a very polticial move.
Its piss poor to not consider other systems, in particular when theres already belly-aching about the moose and sheep system now.
Its also piss poor to not allow those with the most flesh in the game to negotiate a system thats a better fit...and that clearly hasnt ever been done. When Citizens/Hunters feels they're being throttled by legislation...those pushing and drafting that legislation will pay a political price. Thats reality... and theres more than enough pissed off hunters in Carbon County to swing a vote in future elections. If I were a politician in Carbon County, I'd be looking at the facts closer...and realize that 46% of those polled in 2008 STRONGLY OPPOSED preference points.
I'll never support a transfer of points...a transfer of a TAG to a youth...different story. Points should never be allowed to be transfered.
The fact that anyone is entertaining a point transfer of any kind, is reason enough to never adopt a Preference Point System from the start. You cant re-create, change, or further bastardize a system that doesnt exist. The only thing more unfair than a preference system, is changing them down the road.
I think you're wrong...Landowner tags are taken FIRST before anyone else gets a tag. From there the remaining tags are distibuted via regulation with the NR, R splits defined by statuate.
Greenhorn,
Glad you like the NonResident point system as it doesnt impact me as a Resident. Montana's system sure worked well too...so well they had to implement a change to that before their system was even 10 years old.
Its tough to get anyone to look at the downside of preference systems when all involved have only $$$ and the delusion that they'll someday get a tag they want in mind. Not surprising in the ME, ME, ME culture.
However, just because a NR likes the current system, that doest mean that the Resident system has to mirror the NR Preference point system. If you read the legislation that Larry introduced, it doesnt give the WYG&F, Commission, or Resident hunters any room to negotiate a different system. The language is very binding, and thats not by accident...and IMO, a very polticial move.
Its piss poor to not consider other systems, in particular when theres already belly-aching about the moose and sheep system now.
Its also piss poor to not allow those with the most flesh in the game to negotiate a system thats a better fit...and that clearly hasnt ever been done. When Citizens/Hunters feels they're being throttled by legislation...those pushing and drafting that legislation will pay a political price. Thats reality... and theres more than enough pissed off hunters in Carbon County to swing a vote in future elections. If I were a politician in Carbon County, I'd be looking at the facts closer...and realize that 46% of those polled in 2008 STRONGLY OPPOSED preference points.
I'll never support a transfer of points...a transfer of a TAG to a youth...different story. Points should never be allowed to be transfered.
The fact that anyone is entertaining a point transfer of any kind, is reason enough to never adopt a Preference Point System from the start. You cant re-create, change, or further bastardize a system that doesnt exist. The only thing more unfair than a preference system, is changing them down the road.
Last edited:
Carrion Carrier
Member
This is pretty stupid, even for Wyoming.
Ebay anyone?
Ebay anyone?
WapitiBob
Well-known member
From reading the steps, it looks like they split the res/nr tags then split the LO/nr tags, then cycle thru the draw.
I could call and ask.
from the draw dept:
ASSIGNMENT OF RANDOM NUMBERS:
1. All eligible applicants are assigned two random numbers:
Random #1—Preference Point random number
Random #2---Regular random number
NOTE: Party applicants are assigned the SAME random numbers
Random numbers are unique numbers that are generated by a computer system routine.
The random numbers are between #1 and #999999999.
QUOTA PROCESSING—FOR ALL HUNT AREAS
Quota Available for Landowner Drawing:
1. Total Quota is obtained for each hunt area
2. Quota is split between Resident and Nonresident Share (84% NR; 16% RES)
3. Nonresident Total Quota available for each hunt area is split for Landowner Draw
75% (Round UP) Preference Point Draw—Landowner Draw
25% (Round DOWN) Random Point Draw—Landowner Draw
4. Landowner Preference Point Drawing is conducted
Quota balance is held
5. Landowner Random Drawing is conducted
6. Quota balance from Landowner Preference Point Draw and Landowner Random Drawing are combined to a new total quota available for each hunt area
Quota Available for Special Drawing:
7. Total Quota available after Landowner Drawings are Split for Special Draw and Regular Draw
40% (Round UP) quota to Special Drawing
60% (Round DOWN) quota to Regular Drawing
8. Special Drawing Quota is Split for Preference point Drawing and Random Drawing
75% (Round UP) Special Preference Point Drawing
25% (Round DOWN) Special Random Drawing
9. Special Preference Point Drawing is conducted
Quota balance is held to be made available for the Regular Drawing
Quota is not rolled to the Special Random Drawing
10. Special Random Drawing is conducted
Quota balance is held to be made available for the Regular Drawing
Quota Available for Regular Drawing:
11. New Quota balance is calculated for each hunt area
Original 60% for Nonresident Regular Drawing
Plus quota balance from the Nonresident Special Preference Point Drawing
Plus quota balance from the Nonresident Special Random Drawing
12. Quota balance available for Nonresident Regular Drawing is split for Preference Point Drawing and Random
.......
I could call and ask.
from the draw dept:
ASSIGNMENT OF RANDOM NUMBERS:
1. All eligible applicants are assigned two random numbers:
Random #1—Preference Point random number
Random #2---Regular random number
NOTE: Party applicants are assigned the SAME random numbers
Random numbers are unique numbers that are generated by a computer system routine.
The random numbers are between #1 and #999999999.
QUOTA PROCESSING—FOR ALL HUNT AREAS
Quota Available for Landowner Drawing:
1. Total Quota is obtained for each hunt area
2. Quota is split between Resident and Nonresident Share (84% NR; 16% RES)
3. Nonresident Total Quota available for each hunt area is split for Landowner Draw
75% (Round UP) Preference Point Draw—Landowner Draw
25% (Round DOWN) Random Point Draw—Landowner Draw
4. Landowner Preference Point Drawing is conducted
Quota balance is held
5. Landowner Random Drawing is conducted
6. Quota balance from Landowner Preference Point Draw and Landowner Random Drawing are combined to a new total quota available for each hunt area
Quota Available for Special Drawing:
7. Total Quota available after Landowner Drawings are Split for Special Draw and Regular Draw
40% (Round UP) quota to Special Drawing
60% (Round DOWN) quota to Regular Drawing
8. Special Drawing Quota is Split for Preference point Drawing and Random Drawing
75% (Round UP) Special Preference Point Drawing
25% (Round DOWN) Special Random Drawing
9. Special Preference Point Drawing is conducted
Quota balance is held to be made available for the Regular Drawing
Quota is not rolled to the Special Random Drawing
10. Special Random Drawing is conducted
Quota balance is held to be made available for the Regular Drawing
Quota Available for Regular Drawing:
11. New Quota balance is calculated for each hunt area
Original 60% for Nonresident Regular Drawing
Plus quota balance from the Nonresident Special Preference Point Drawing
Plus quota balance from the Nonresident Special Random Drawing
12. Quota balance available for Nonresident Regular Drawing is split for Preference Point Drawing and Random
.......
Last edited:
BuzzH
Well-known member
That data isnt correct...there is no preference point draw and random draw for Non-resident landowners or Resident landowners.
How can there be? Residents arent even under a Preference system yet...
I'll phone Cheyenne...but in the meatime...check out this data:
2008, unit 124 elk total tags issued was 20.
10 were issued to residents
1 NR tag to regular price max point pool
2 NR tags to special price max point pool.
The remaining 7 tags went to landowers.
With the splits you provided, if all the tags for the landowners were taken from the Non-resident pool...there wouldnt have been any NR tags issued.
I'm 99% certain that the landowners are guaranteed 100% of the tags for all hunts first...
How can there be? Residents arent even under a Preference system yet...
I'll phone Cheyenne...but in the meatime...check out this data:
2008, unit 124 elk total tags issued was 20.
10 were issued to residents
1 NR tag to regular price max point pool
2 NR tags to special price max point pool.
The remaining 7 tags went to landowers.
With the splits you provided, if all the tags for the landowners were taken from the Non-resident pool...there wouldnt have been any NR tags issued.
I'm 99% certain that the landowners are guaranteed 100% of the tags for all hunts first...
WapitiBob
Well-known member
That's the info the draw dept sent me a cpl weeks ago when Strang was going sideways.
NR will always get tags, regardless of the LO tags. We're guaranteed 7,250 full price tags by law. After the PP and Random draws, they convert leftover full price to GEN full price then conduct the GEN portion of the draw.
In your example we very well could be shut out of a unit by lo's drawing all the le tags. Our 7250 could all be gen tags. We're only guaranteed full price tags, not le tags.
Ask for Mellissa when you call.
Shoot me your email and I'll send the entire draw process document they sent me.
NR will always get tags, regardless of the LO tags. We're guaranteed 7,250 full price tags by law. After the PP and Random draws, they convert leftover full price to GEN full price then conduct the GEN portion of the draw.
In your example we very well could be shut out of a unit by lo's drawing all the le tags. Our 7250 could all be gen tags. We're only guaranteed full price tags, not le tags.
Ask for Mellissa when you call.
Shoot me your email and I'll send the entire draw process document they sent me.
Last edited:
Similar threads
