App fee increase bill

[jimss]

Currently it's possible to apply for tags for a relatively cheap application fee without buying pref pts...to avoid pref pt fees.

It seems like hunters that don't have enough pts to draw the tag or tags they want could save some $ by just purchasing pts rather than having to pay for applications plus pref pt fees?

If I had the choice and wasn't serious about drawing a tag, I'd rather put $ towards pref pts than horrible draw odds for the same $. Those that apply for tags plus pref pts are hammered twice for fees!

I certainly hope the WG&F puts to good use this additional revenue if it passes!

 

[WapitiBob]

If I had the choice and wasn't serious about drawing a tag, I'd rather put $ towards pref pts than horrible draw odds for the same $. Those that apply for tags plus pref pts are hammered twice for fees!

I certainly hope the WG&F puts to good use this additional revenue if it passes!

there is no application fee when buying points

 

[jimss]

I guess I should rephrase my last post. Those that apply for tags plus pref pts are hammered twice for fees....Once for the application fee when applying for a tag and a 2nd time for a pref pt if a tag isn't drawn. If Wyo increases the application fee it may be worth cutting your expenses by just applying for a point and not apply for a tag.

It's almost getting to the point that Wyo and other states are pricing out the Average Joe Hunter....which is pretty sad! My guess is that outfitters are all in favor of this because more of their wealthy clients will possibly draw high demand tags. Outfitters were all in favor of the Special tag price increase and I'm sure they are all in favor of anything that raises the price for tags in the public draw.

 

[TOGIE]

I guess I should rephrase my last post. Those that apply for tags plus pref pts are hammered twice for fees....Once for the application fee when applying for a tag and a 2nd time for a pref pt if a tag isn't drawn. If Wyo increases the application fee it may be worth cutting your expenses by just applying for a point and not apply for a tag.

It's almost getting to the point that Wyo and other states are pricing out the Average Joe Hunter....which is pretty sad! My guess is that outfitters are all in favor of this because more of their wealthy clients will possibly draw high demand tags. Outfitters were all in favor of the Special tag price increase and I'm sure they are all in favor of anything that raises the price for tags in the public draw.

you never gain a point in the draw. can only buy them after the draw

 

[jimss]

You are right, they are separate. It's possible to purchase pts without applying for a tag and paying the tag application fee. If a hunter is on a tight budget, he can actually apply for pts every other year without losing his points.

 

[Lost Arra]

This proposal is a way to pull more money from the huge pool of unsuccessful applicants that Wyoming's system has knowingly created. They want more of your money but you get nothing in return. The amount doesn't look large by itself but it's just another way for WGF to increase their juice or vig from a larger group of people. It is an extension of the point system that produces $20M and gives the buyer really nothing of value. Buyer dies, points gone. Buyer forgets to buy a point for a year or two, points gone.

Increasing tag fees will always cause complaints but at least you have a tag and are going hunting. You have purchased something of value. Their next ploy will be to charge a fee for NOT applying for either a tag or a point.

 

[Cheese Curd]

I wonder how long it will take them to make you buy a point every year or you lose your points.

 

[Neighwp]

Why not just auction off everything on an Ebay Like auction platform. Let actual supply and demand dictate the tag costs. The great tags would be stupid expensive and the garbage tags would be a few hundred bucks.

 

[JAG]

I wonder how long it will take them to make you buy a point every year or you lose your points.

2 years of not buying points, you lose them.

 

[Big Fin]

If Wyoming is serious about raising this kind or revenue, add it to the point purchase price rather than the app fee.

Lots of points being bought for people who will likely never hunt, rather their points will be used for folks who want to average points with them. Make those folks pay more, not the people who are actually applying and intending to hunt.

More money raised, given only about 20% of the people who have points actually applying each year. Charging that fee across 5-10x as many transactions (point purchases) will either raise 5-10x as much money or raise the same money with 1/5 to 1-10 of the proposed price.

Any state wanting to see how to raise $20+million per year without a single additional animal being taken and not a single additional hunter in the field, Wyoming has written the game plan for how to do it. Very smart in their part, proven by the 195K non-residents currently in their elk point system.

 

[5yearcoueshunter]

If Wyoming is serious about raising this kind or revenue, add it to the point purchase price rather than the app fee.

Lots of points being bought for people who will likely never hunt, rather their points will be used for folks who want to average points with them. Make those folks pay more, not the people who are actually applying and intending to hunt.

More money raised, given only about 20% of the people who have points actually applying each year. Charging that fee across 5-10x as many transactions (point purchases) will either raise 5-10x as much money or raise the same money with 1/5 to 1-10 of the proposed price.

Any state wanting to see how to raise $20+million per year without a single additional animal being taken and not a single additional hunter in the field, Wyoming has written the game plan for how to do it. Very smart in their part, proven by the 195K non-residents currently in their elk point system.

Agreed! To me an App fee should really be to cover administrative costs of running the draw, paying vendors etc. If Wyoming goes this route to raise app fees for revenue, I'd rather them just either increase the cost of points or do like other states and make people buy a general license to apply. At least with the license, folks can potentially use it to go hunt grouse or fish if they don't draw any tags.

 

[JAG]

If Wyoming is serious about raising this kind or revenue, add it to the point purchase price rather than the app fee.

Lots of points being bought for people who will likely never hunt, rather their points will be used for folks who want to average points with them. Make those folks pay more, not the people who are actually applying and intending to hunt.

More money raised, given only about 20% of the people who have points actually applying each year. Charging that fee across 5-10x as many transactions (point purchases) will either raise 5-10x as much money or raise the same money with 1/5 to 1-10 of the proposed price.

Any state wanting to see how to raise $20+million per year without a single additional animal being taken and not a single additional hunter in the field, Wyoming has written the game plan for how to do it. Very smart in their part, proven by the 195K non-residents currently in their elk point system.

If they increase the point purchase fee, would people be more inclined to stop buying points OR
-if they increased the application fee would fewer people stop applying?

I imagine they've thought this through and decided they would experience less attrition if they increased the application fees.

If the concern for losing applicants or point purchases, I would imagine they would need to be concerned about pivoting again for the reduction in hunters once the swell of baby boomers age out. Arizona released their numbers of the ages of point buyers and we are getting close to the sunset of that era.

If WY has considered this, then it would make more sense to increase the app fee and not the points since a large population of point buyers will eventually stop due to age.

My vote is to keep it the same.

 

[Big Fin]

@JAG, I hadn’t thought of it that way.

I guess when I see the ever increasing number of Wyoming point buyers, or when folks whisper how many people they are buying points for, or when I see posts online where people offer some very handsome sums, or when people tell me their outfitter suggests they buy points for multiple people so they can come hunting every year, it causes me to think that Wyoming’s ever increasing pool of point buyers is:

1) filled with point buyers who are there on somebody else’s dollar and with little intent to hunt. And,

2) will pay the fee if added to the PP cost

I seriously doubt WY has thought about the factors you mention. History has shown that most state legislatures pass laws without considering all factors, such as those you mention.

Also, I’ve been tracking point systems, churn rates, point buyers growth, and other nerdy accountant-type things cross many states for almost two decades. Wyoming stands out as an anomaly compared to others in terms of its growth, churn rates, and percentage of applicants who actually apply for a tag.

Wyoming has some great elk hunting, but should they have 4x the number of non-residents in the elk point game than Arizona, or 5x of Utah, or 2x Colorado? Is their elk hunting that good or is the price to build points so low that it’s not a deterrent to buying points for multiple people?

Colorado solved that by not allowing point averaging. They have a way higher churn rate than Wyoming and a higher percentage of point holders who actually apply for a tag.

Utah issues so few tags per hunt code, party apps would be of zero benefit.

Arizona has the high cost of the non-refundable, non-resident license.

When the cost is only $50, low compared to other states, and there can be benefit to point averaging, I have arrived at the conclusion, possibly incorrect, that the huge increase in Wyoming elk point buyers are mostly people who’ll likely never hunt, rather used to point average some hunter who burned his points and wants to have options after burning their own points.

Add in the anecdotal stuff of people offering strangers to average points with them and outfitters suggesting their clients do the same, and my gut also tells me that’s a high likelihood for the increase far beyond AZ, UT, and CO.

If Wyoming adopted Colorado’s point averaging system, I suspect my theory would be proven/disproven.

 

[5yearcoueshunter]

When the cost is only $50, low compared to other states, and there can be benefit to point averaging, I have arrived at the conclusion, possibly incorrect, that the huge increase in Wyoming elk point buyers are mostly people who’ll likely never hunt, rather used to point average some hunter who burned his points and wants to have options after burning their own points.

I think you're right Randy. Also, didn't the point fee start off even cheaper than that for elk? I know it did for Moose. I bought I think 2 or 3 points for $7 then it went up incrementally till what it is now at $150. That's what got me sucked into keep buying, because I don't want to loose those points even though I'll probably never catch up to get a tag. haha

 

[JAG]

Wyoming has some great elk hunting, but should they have 4x the number of non-residents in the elk point game than Arizona, or 5x of Utah, or 2x Colorado? Is their elk hunting that good or is the price to build points so low that it’s not a deterrent to buying points for multiple people?

Yes, to the first two questions; 'half a yes' to the third question. Wyoming has many more units than Utah that offer a chance to win a unit with access to decent bulls in their general units. The details from your podcast with Corey about Utah is vaguely slipping my memory, but the weird statistic 130 years of points to be spent before you can hunt there.

• Colorado solved that by not allowing point averaging. They have a way higher churn rate than Wyoming and a higher percentage of point holders who actually apply for a tag.

I agree they solved that problem, but is having point collectors such a problem? At best, it is annoying but let the dreamers keep collecting points while people like you and me keep hunting. Many of us thought there would be a huge point dump before Wyoming's Special Tag fee increase, but it didn't happen. We thought there was going to be a huge spike in point creep during the first year of the latest 5 year plan for Colorado's Mule Deer 3rd and 4th Rifle seasons. To both of these years, yes there was an increase in point creep by 2-3 points in some units, but it was nowhere near the point surge that could have happened if everyone dumped their points like you told us to.

Except for the anomalies mentioned, it's reasonably predictable to expect a 1-point creep per year for most units.

To your good points about the three states below, it is worth weighing in with more context:

• Utah issues so few tags per hunt code, party apps would be of zero benefit.

People keep building points here mainly because they have an OTC option that makes it fiducially acceptable for applicants to hunt, build points, and keep chasing dream units. I find it appealing that Wyoming does not have OTC for NR's, every unit in Wyoming has elk. Utah and Arizona both have dead zones.

• Arizona has the high cost of the non-refundable, non-resident license.

Yes, but Arizona has a host of cute tricks about their draw system that make it affordable and appealing. If you only build elk points as I do, I get points each year for less than what I spend for Colorado. In AZ, I get a mule deer point every other year. (Other cute tricks; loyalty point, dirt cheap for youth, and a permanent hunter safety course point)

• When the cost is only $50, low compared to other states, and there can be benefit to point averaging, I have arrived at the conclusion, possibly incorrect, that the huge increase in Wyoming elk point buyers are mostly people who’ll likely never hunt, rather used to point average some hunter who burned his points and wants to have options after burning their own points.

If held in isolation, yes Wyoming points are dirt cheap, but the youth tag cost is triple the cost of Colorado's, and the Special Tag cost just jumped out of reach for my budget and is no longer an option. I was surprised to see the Special draw didn't create as much traction as we dreaded, so I would cast my NR vote to double the Special Tag cost instead of increasing the Application fee. This way, it allows rich people to choose to be rich and hunt more with the outfitters, but let us less-rich DIY hunters keep hunting without getting fleeced with extra fees.

I think for either this year or the next, we will see the odds of the special draw even out squarely with the regular draw and be back to what it was in '23 and prior. This option would attract more people with low points and big pocketbooks, but not penalize the masses of NR's who can barely afford to elk hunt as it is. I'm not saying I'm poor, but choose not to pay $2K for an elk tag.

What are your thoughts on increasing the special tag fee instead? By how much?

 

[Big Fin]

I might have strayed off topic. Point I hoped to make was in my first post on the topic being; if this is about raising revenue, I think Wyoming could do it easier by increasing the price of points, not charging higher app fees.

I have hated the Reg/Spec pricing structure ever since Wyoming came up with it. That said, most my apps have been in the Special since that started.

I love hunting in Wyoming and at my age I’ll pay more for the limited hunts I have left. The Special is close to my limit for what I’d pay for mule deer, the gap between the Special price and my limit for what I’d pay for elk is a bit wider, and they could triple the Special price for pronghorn and I’d still be applying by cutting some other apps if necessary.

Even with that, I’d rather that nobody gets better odds because they can afford to pay more. That’s not changing in Wyoming, as WYOGA knows it benefits their clients. So, I accept it.

To your question, I don’t want to see any further gap between the two categories. Before doing that I’d advocate to take a fourth of the 40% allocated to the Special and quadruple the Special price, though I don’t think either of those would raise as much money for Wyoming.

I’d still advocate that they’d raise more money by tacking that fee increase on to point purchase fees.

 

[seeth07]

I thought Wyoming was doing pretty good financially in the Fish and Game department and the change last year I'm guessing helped pad those pockets some more.

Is there a breakdown of where the extra money from last year is being spent this year? Or a breakdown of where this added income would potentially go?

 

[Archer86]

I thought Wyoming was doing pretty good financially in the Fish and Game department and the change last year I'm guessing helped pad those pockets some more.

Is there a breakdown of where the extra money from last year is being spent this year? Or a breakdown of where this added income would potentially go?

Government will always find away to spend money even if they don't need it.......there is never extra

 

[jimss]

One consideration about raising the price of pref pts and leaving application fees relatively cheap (or the same) is there is no requirement to buy pref pts in Wyoming. Hunters can apply for tags every year without buying expensive pref pts.

Some hunters applying in Colorado figured out years ago that having a gob of pref pts for sheep, goat, and moose really hasn't done anything to improve their draw odds. Why purchase more points than the miniumum of 3 required, if pts are expensive and hardly help draw odds?

With splitting tag allotments in 1/2 into 2 different pools (pref and random), pref pts will be even more meaningless! Colo now is charging more for tags and to apply to possibly make up for this. I think it is ridiculous that Colo didn't adopt a cubed or squared bonus pt system rather than a simple bonus pt system in the random 1/2 of the pool! Bonus pts may sound good but hardly do anything to improve draw odds in a system with so many applicants and so few tags.

 

[OMB]

If the concern for losing applicants or point purchases, I would imagine they would need to be concerned about pivoting again for the reduction in hunters once the swell of baby boomers age out. Arizona released their numbers of the ages of point buyers and we are getting close to the sunset of that era.

Do you have a link to this? Super curious to take a look at it, and my google-fu is apparently not strong this morning.