The following is not great writing, but for those who have never written a legislator, here is a fairly useful format. I know for those of you who do this regularly, this is a worthless post, but if it makes it easier for those new to the process it will be worth the 5 seconds it takes you to move along.
And while it is trite, be polite, identify the relevant bill designation, state your interest in the issue and connection to state, raise specific reasons for your concern, and ask for their vote. You would be surprised at how many communications they get that don't cover these simple items.
SIMPLE EXAMPLE:
Dear Mr./Ms. ____,
I write with concern about Wyoming Senate File No. SF0003. While not a citizen of Wyoming, myself, friends, family and church have all looked to Wyoming as a wonderful place to share our love of the outdoors. One of the activities that draws me and my son to Wyoming is your outstanding stewardship of your state's hunting resources, an issue relevant to SF0003.
SF0003 is concerning on two fronts, the first is the extension of preferential access to public hunting resources to specific sub-groups. The North American outdoorsman model functions best when all of our citizens have equal access to these precious and limited resources. Providing preferential and unequal access to sub-groups, whether to affluent hunters who can "pay to play" or to otherwise deserving organizations, eventually erodes the sportsman's (sportwoman's) confidence in the system and makes them less likely to continue to invest their time and energy into this economically and culturally important pastime. No matter the cause, there are almost always better ways to promote hunting and outdoors access than to set up inequality in granting such access.
My second reason for concern is that SF0003 appears to support a continuation of preferential access to a very small group of wealthy and influential individuals. A group who uses only a third of the tags for its formal event and then uses the other two-thirds of the tags to provide its past participants effectively permanent antelope tags. On top of that, this group excludes women from full participation. This is an anachronistic approach for 2018, and an approach which is not alleviated by then doubling the number of special tags so that similar numbers can be provided to an exclusively women's group.
For these reasons, I respectfully ask that you vote against SF0003, and that you also support repeal of the existing special allocation.
Best Regards,
Your Name Here