Wyoming Wildlife Taskforce August Public Feedback Questions (Responses).xlsx

	A	B	C	D	E	F	G	H	I	J	K	L	M	N	O
1	First Name	Last Name	Residency	Prop 1 - High Demand Areas	Should the Wyoming Wildlife Taskforce recommend this change to the Wyoming Game and Fish Commission?	Prop 2 - 90/10 Split in HD Areas	Should the Wyoming Wildlife Taskforce recommend this change to the Wyoming Game and Fish Commission?	Prop 3 - Waiting Period	Should the Wyoming Wildlife Taskforce recommend this change to the Wyoming Game and Fish Commission?	Prop 4 - Weighted Bonus Points	Should the Wyoming Wildlife Taskforce recommend this change to the Wyoming Game and Fish Commission?	Prop 5 - Resident Pref in Leftover	Should the Wyoming Wildlife Taskforce recommend this change to the Wyoming Game and Fish Commission?	Prop 6 - Outfitter Set Aside	Should the Wyoming Wildlife Taskforce recommend this change to the Wyoming Game and Fish Commission?

2	Lydia	Decaria	Resident	yes	Yes	yes	Yes	yes	Yes	yes	Yes	yes	Yes	yes	Yes
3	Kevin	Brainard	Resident	Please leave as status quo.	No	If this was an across the board change, and did not include all the outfitter welfare involved with the “grand compromise”, then I would support it. However, I won’t support the rest of the compromise in order to get to this.	No	As this is also part of the grand compromise, please leave as status quo.	No	I am in favor of this if it is a stand alone proposal.	Yes	I am in favor of this.	Yes	As against this as possible.	No
4	Rob	Winn	Resident	No there is absolutely no reason to divide out units. Any fool can see the draw odds and we all have our own choices. Absolutely opposed to this. Random is the most fair and best system for license distribution. No waiting periods, nothing. Some guys get lucky other do not. Every year I have a chance at a limited tag is all I want or need. Anything else is is just guys looking for a hand out. This will only muddy the waters and have many unforeseen issues in time. Keep the random draw, and let the card land where they land. No one should have any advantage at all in any way. Every year we should all be treated the same. No one resident should be punished and no one resident should be favored over the other.	No	Residents should have 90/10 in all limited draws. But there is no reason to give outfitter welfare. Status would is far better than any Outfiiter draw or transferable landowner tags. If this is passed on it’s own the task force should absolutely move forward with this recommendation. But it should not be part of any scheme to get outfitters tags.	No	No resident should be punished or rewarded over another. Do not separate this out. Let the random be the random draw. It is the greatest system. It is simple and fair. Do not mess with it. We should never give any advantage or punish any resident. All residents have an equal chance at all tags every year.	No	Not at all. Keep the random. Every point scheme fails. It is just a matter of time before people will not be happy and eventually they will want this changed. Keep the random draw it is the most fair and equitable way to distribute licenses. Keep the random. Do not go down the path of point, or any other ponzi type scheme for licenses…	No	Yes. The residents should have a better shot at license in WY in every way we should try and favor them.	Yes	Absolutely not. None north nothing. This will be the single most harmful thing you can do to resident hunters and to the nonresident hunters. Sorry but this will destroy access, end the HMA and Walk in problems. It will gut resident access and do far more harm than good. There should be no outfitter welfare. They offer a good product at a good price they will be fine. This is strongly opposed in every way!!!	No
5	Nic	Segebrecht	Nonresident	I am in favor.	Yes	I am STRONGLY AGAINST this change to cut non-resident tags.	No	I am against a waiting period.	No	I have no opinion on the resident draw process.	Yes	I feel that leftover licenses should be FCFS.	No	There is no need for an outfitter welfare program. I am STRONGLY AGAINST this. We are already restricted from wilderness areas without an outfitter or resident.	No
6	Ami	Hanson	Resident	No, because strings will be attached that favor outfitters, large landowners and politicians, in any deals trying to made at this point. If any proposals directly state that "draw odds will not be increased for resident or non resident hunters by arranging hunts through an outfitter, " I will consider my answer here differently.	No	No, my answer remains the same for previously stated reasons.	No	No, landowners have enough benefits in Wyoming hunts and should not be excluded from a waiting period other people are expected to have.	No	No, not if odds are at all affected by whether or not a resident hunter is arranging hunt through an outfitter.	No	No, not if residents hunters arranging hunts through outfitters have an advantage over those who don't.	No	100% ABSOLUTELY AGAINST THIS IDEA! NO!!!!	No
7	Justin	Evans	Nonresident	Status Quo	No	Status Quo	No	Status Quo	No	Status Quo	No	Status Quo	No	Status Quo	No
8	Paul	Threlkeld	Resident	I do not support this proposition. But if you do go forward with it why would you not include all types of licenses?	No	The recommendation should be 90% resident across-the-board for all types of licenses.	No	Status quo	No	I would support this but I would prefer it not be a weighted system. Just a bonus point system.	Yes	Yes I support this recommendation. There is not a lot of leftover licenses available these days that are wanted by residents so why not do it? It will silence and appease the people wanting it and have a minimal effect on the game and fish revenue.	Yes	Status quo	No
9	Darren	Compton	Nonresident	“Status Quo.” Not needed extra work for Wyoming Game & Fish.	No	“Status Quo.” Any changes to a 90/10 will adversely affect small communities and land owners who charge a trespass fee.	No	“Status Quo.” No to high demand areas at all. It’s luck of the draw.	No	“Status Quo.”	No	“Status Quo.”	No	“Status Quo.” This is the absolute worst thing you could do to Wyoming. Absolutely NO.	No
10	Jeff	Muratore	Resident	Status Quo	No	If all unsubscribed resident licenses from initial draw are rolled over, residents should get 90/10 on all elk, deer and antelope in initial drawing.	Yes	No waiting period, leave status quo	No	Yes, in favor of bonus points	Yes	Yes, in favor	Yes	Not in favor, prefer status quo.	No
11	Blake	Rehm	Resident	NO	No	Yes	Yes	NO	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	NO	No
12	Chance	Marquette	Resident	In favor	Yes	In favor	Yes	In favor	Yes	In favor	Yes	In favor	Yes	Outfitters do not need set aside tags. Good outfits will not need guaranteed tags to survive.	No
13	jason	sutherland	Nonresident	Leave it alone.	No	Leave it unchanged.	No	Do not change it.	No	No point system.	No	No, do not change.	No	No, do not change.	No
14	Pam	Bartush	Resident	No , I do not support this idea. It will not help with hard to draw licenses. Random draw is the most fair draw for residents.	No	No I am not in favor of this proposal. No RESIDENT licenses should be rolled into the NR draw at all. They should be set aside for a RESIDENT leftover draw first. Outfitters are trying to get a bigger slice of the license pie and they should not. Give RESIDENTS their share of the quota guaranteed, no roll over opf any resident licenses into the NR draw at all.	No	No I do not support this idea . No one will be guaranteed a license by it and draw odds will not be any better. Keep our resident draw random with no waiting periods.	No	No bonus point or PP for residents . Keep our draw random. These changes will do nothing to help with draw odds. Maybe concentrate on habitat and ways to get our wildlife populations back on track. We want a fair and random draw.	No	It sounds better than rolling those licenses into the NR draw but why not just give RESIDENTS their quota in a leftover draw first then allow NR to apply for any leftovers ? Resident licenses should be offered to any NR until after we have had our leftover draw. Licenses will get bought and management will be implemented via the RESIDENTS hunting on the licenses in the leftover draw. The most simple fix is not rolling R licenses into the NR draw. Keep those under allocated in the leftover draw for residents only then offer leftovers to NRs.	Yes	Absolutely no to this proposal. Outfitters should not be guaranteed any income based on taking of a public resource unless they pay a premium for every animals harvested under this system of drawing licenses. No state employee is guaranteed anything like the income they are proposing for themselves. The state legislators need to look this proposal over very carefully and maybe address it with legislation if the Task Force pushes this further. Many DIY hunters that spend way more locally than outfitted hunters staying in a camp will be left out. I'm sorry but outfitted hunters do not spend locally like DIY hunters.	No
15	Nino	Ripepi	Nonresident	I am not in favor of this as 30% is a random number with many of the draw odds falling very close to this threshold on either side. It makes no sense to me and I see where it will push folks applying from the HD to SD after they draw and moving those draw odds significantly. Just let supply and demand do its work here and don't get involved, the better units will be harder to draw and people will plan their draws accordingly. While you are at it, you should abolish the Non-resident split for Special tags and just charge the same price for both tags as a weighted average btwn the 2.	No	This is just too complicated as many of the draw odds fall right on that 30% cusp, just come up with a number and leave it be, whatever the % is like 16%.	No	The issue in doing this is anyone that draws a high demand hunt then will apply for a low demand hunt and change those draw odds. If you do waiting periods, you need to do them across the board to work! Get rid of HD and SD and do a waiting period and supply and demand will work itself out better than getting involved.	No	This is well thought out and makes more sense than HD/SD/Waiting periods. There is no reason to do both this and waiting periods as the squared bonus point awards those in the game longest.	Yes	Residents already have preference for every license that goes to leftover as one of their 1-4 choices. Most of the tags that go to leftover have limited public land and the use of an outfitter is more helpful on these tags. I think this would hurt your outfitters.	No	Wow. This goes against the north American model of wildlife management which is based on equity. You will make it so only the rich non-residents can hunt in your state. Is that what you want? You want welfare for outfitters while taking away opportunity for family non-resident DIY guys? When I go on an outfitter hunt it is usually only one hunter who goes with the outfitter. When I go on a DIY hunt, there is usually 2-3 additional non-hunters with the hunter who drew a tag hunting. If that is the case across the board, then DIY hunters bring more people and more revenue to Wyoming.	No
16	Chris	Conroy	Nonresident	If this helps the resident hunter, I am for it	Yes	I agree that residents should have better access to their own state than non-residents	Yes	No waiting periods	No	I am a non-resident.	No	I think residents should have an advantage over non-residents. It is their state	Yes	Absolutely not. Let non-residents make their own choice of DIY or outfitter. This is just lining the outfitter's pocket.	No
17	Tim	Edwards	Resident	How would this proposition on it's own merit benefit the resident hunter? This proposition should be grouped with the waiting period proposition as this wouldn't serve much purpose unless it is incorporated alongside the waiting period.	No	I prefer the status quo from a game and fish funding perspective. Sure, I would like to see more tags going to residents, however that would ultimately come with a higher tag price being burdened on the resident hunter which would receive extreme opposition from the population.	No	This proposition has some merit for deer and elk, however the antelope draw process needs special language incorporated within this proposition. Given the fact that there are currently only a handful of areas that have unprescribed type 1, 2, 3, 9, or 0 tags after 1st choice applicants are considered across all species, this proposition essentially would limit residents to potentially drawing a buck antelope tag every fourth year. For antelope in particular, residents should be allowed to apply for the SD units while the waiting period for HD units is being exercised since there is no general tag option for that species. This proposition needs to be further thought out and detailed before submission to the Game and Fish Department.	Yes	I would be in favor of this if there were not an option for "point only" during the application process. In short, the only way to accumulate a point is by applying for the respective species and they lose the points if they don't apply over a two year span.	Yes	Yes, this should be implemented.	Yes	No, this should not be considered nor should the task force be wasting their time further considering this. It also strikes me as odd that after the short public comment period last month where the opposition to this proposition was 500-1 or higher, that now the percentage of tags the outfitters want to steal out of the system has been increased. The only party this proposition benefits is the outfitters, whereas all other parties being both resident and NR DIY hunters, lodging providers, etc. it will have a profound negative impact.	No
18	Bryce	Harvey	Resident	I am not in favor of this	No	Not in favor	No	Not in favor	No	Not in favor	No	It in favor	No	Not in favor. Just because you have outfitters friends doesn't mean we force people to use them. I can't force people to go to my business why should outfitters be able to.	No
19	Emily	Marseilles	Resident	Not in favor	No	Not in favor	No	Not in favor	No	Not in favor	No	Not in favor	No	Not in favor	No
20	Bethany	Mueller	Resident	I prefer the way it is now.	No	This gives non residents a better chance at drawing if paying an outfitter. We need to find ways to let the residents of Wyoming access ALL public land. It is called public land for a reason. We need to quit worrying about making non residents happy and worry about making it better hunting conditions for our residents. This sounds like the task force has found a way to pad their own pockets and make the outfitters happy under the guise of making it easier for non residents. They can hang out all the resident tags they want, but if they aren't making access to ALL public land easier they aren't helping anyone but themselves.	No	I prefer the way it is.	No	I think we need to be letting all residents that apply for a license get one before any non resident is even considered.	No	I think we should be making sure all RESIDENT licenses are filled before ANY NON RESIDENT is even considered.	No	I think all residents should be able to fill tags and bunt in any public areas WITHOUT having to try to go through an outfitter to get to any public land.	No
21	Jordan	Arnold	Resident	I’m not in favor of this recommendation, trying to reduce the amount of applicants for hard to draw tags only puts greater pressure on other tags. A completely random draw is THE ONLY fair system	No	I’m not in favor of this recommendation, as a resident it’s sad to see Wyoming alienate non resident hunting opportunities. These small tag allocation changes have little to no impact on how many more tags residents will get. Hard to draw areas will always be hard to draw a few extra tags won’t make people happy cause they’ll still be hrs to draw. This only hurts nonresidents who contribute enormous amounts of funding to the department and local economies.	No	I’m not in favor of how this recommendation is structured. I’m in favor for a waiting period after drawing a limited quota type 1, 2, 3, 9, 0 tag. The problem is only creating waiting periods for high demand tags. The years following after high demand tags get drawn only will increase the demand for tags that are normally “lesser demand”. If a waiting period is to be set then it must be across the board for all draw tags. In the waiting period years hunters can still be eligible to hunt with a general tag.	No	Absolutely Not! Points NEVER work as a sustainable system, whether it be preference points of bonus points they don’t work. Random draw are THE ONLY Fair system.	No	I’m fine with this but I generally don’t look for leftover tags. I know many nonresident hunters look forward to leftover tags and it generates more revenue. Generally speaking leftover tags are usually low success tags because of several factors, access being the most prominent.	Yes	No No No No No! This is outfitter welfare and limits The average DIY nonresident hunter. It also creates a pay to play system. Hunting is a heritage and shouldn’t be swayed by deep pockets. By doing this Wyoming is just continuing to reduce hunting opportunities. Hunting has become increasingly popular and we’ve seen that with demand for tags, it’s not going to get any better but this proposal is giving preferential treatment to outfitters and big landowners who lease for profit. I’m not against outfitters or landowners by any means but they shouldn’t be guaranteed tags.	No
22	Matt	Galovich	Resident	I completely disagree with this!!! The idea of trying to control the outcome of the draw to be so called "more fair" in outcome through a bonus point system or any other is inherently unfair in opportunity. It is this concept of trying to make the outcome fair vs the opportunity. And by so doing throws equal opportunity out the window in hopes to have more control over the outcome. One can never change the fact, with any system, that when there are more people applying for an area than tags available there always be someone left without. Using a bonus system is preferencing some over others, it just depends on how and why you define such. There is no way to avoid an account for the constant ever-changing variables. Such as, population increases, demand, animal numbers, switching areas, youth hunters, new residents, point creep and so on. Why should anyone have a higher chance in opportunity than someone that has not applied for several years versus one that has? Or any other number of examples. Or for arguments sake, even one that has drawn a tag recently versus one that has not? Random draw is as fair and equal as it possibly can get, it's just people don't like the outcome. If trying to account for people who have been successful in the draw, a waiting period type solution of such tags is a hundred times better way to try and mitigate things. Any point system will inherently come at the cost of equal opportunity and will always create more problems than it solves.	No	Game are the resource of the people of Wyoming and they should always come first in the draw before any non-residents. I would support all tags to be at least 90% resident with 10% or less going to non-resident. Someone clear across the country does not have the rights to the game of Wyoming as a resident who lives here, pays taxes, votes and has control over their state.	Yes	I believe a one, or at most, two year waiting period is sufficient for our current population and demand. I would start with a one-year as it can always be increased with the need. 3 years is a long time and I believe is overkill. But nothing can change the fact that a simple random draw year after year is as fair and equal as it can possibly be in opportunity.	No	Please, no no no! Please do not recommend this! As previously stated, this is a disaster for many many reasons! It is inherently unfair and unequal to try and control the outcome by preferencing some over others! Regardless of the why's!	No	Yes again residents should always come first and take precedence over a non-resident	Yes	A non-resident if given a tag should not be stipulated you have to hunt through an outfitter	Yes
23	Justin	Rozich	Nonresident	I am not in favor of this and prefer the status quo. To me the current system works just fine and I would like it to stay in place.	No	I am not in favor of this recommendation and prefer the status quo. I think the current system works just fine. Please do not take away nonresident opportunity. Keep the 80/20 split for antelope and deer and the 84/16 split for elk.	No	I am not in favor of this recommendation and prefer the status quo. I do not support a wait period for high demand hunt areas. I do not support the designation of high demand areas.	No	As a nonresident, I can support this recommendation for residents. I would prefer residents earn bonus points rather than have hunt areas designated as high demand and establish wait periods. The more bonus points you accumulate, the better chance you'll have to draw a "better trophy" unit. Those that would prefer to wait longer for a better tag can wait, those that would prefer to hunt more often in a "lesser trophy" unit, or want to play their luck on drawing a "better trophy" unit with fewer points can do that.	Yes	I am in favor of this recommendation. I feel that residents should be given preference over any leftover tags.	Yes	I 100% DO NOT support this recommendation. Do not take opportunity away from hunters that want to hunt on their own without the assistance of an outfitter. The hunters that want to hunt with an outfitter can hunt with an outfitter. I think it is ridiculous to set aside tags to support the outfitter cause. Outfitters will still have plenty of clients without a set aside. This would just take away more nonresident opportunity. It makes hunting a money game. If you can't afford to pay an outfitter, you will lose hunting opportunity. DIY tags will become more difficult for NR to draw, as the draw odds will lessen without a special draw. Please do not put the state of Wyoming into this predicament. The outfitter guides are owed nothing special. Please do not sell the wildlife of the state of Wyoming to support outfitter guides.	No
24	Mike	Ewell	Nonresident	Yes this is a good change	Yes	No, just because NR buy points to wait in line. Changing allocation extends the line and will make High Demand almost impossible for new hunters to draw and Standard Demand would become once in a lifetime	No	Yes waiting periods would help high demand areas.	Yes	Yes, this would help with balancing demand.	Yes	Yes This makes a lot of sense for residents.	Yes	No, this goes against the North American conservation model.	No
25	Joseph	Dibble	Nonresident	I don’t see how this would affect anything (draw odds/success, hunt success); based on the description. Only a designation based on the draw statistics.	No	I oppose. This will kill the current OOS applicant hunting opportunities as they are now. We appreciate WY because their is a reasonable chance to go hunting there every 3-5 years. This would increase that to every 15-25 years in many cases. I think that is very disappointing to say the least.	No	Opposed. Again, why change this now? I think it’s great that non residents and residents can reapply the following year for animals drawn.	No	Support. I like this, bonus points, compared to preference points. If the number of Out of State tags do become severely limited down to only 10%, then it may start to become statistically impossible to draw some tags in the preference point system in a persons lifetime, if only a handful are given out each year. This dis-incentivizes future generations from applying	Yes	Not in favor. Again, penalizing non residents	No	Oppose. This is an outfitter welfare program. Non residents should be able to choose if want to book with an outfitter, and not receive any priority or favor or penalty in the draw with or without.	No
26	Adam	Bronson	Nonresident	Leave as status quo	No	No high demand or standard hunts, Just simple units	No	No to high demand areas, so no to waiting periods as well	No	I'm not a resident so I don't have an opinion here.	No	I don't care about leftover draws, so no strong opinion on this issue	No	Absolutely NO to outfitter set aside welfare tags	No
27	Anthony	Siebert	Resident	Status quo	No	90/10 in all areas	No	Status quo	No	We should never have preference points for residents.	No	Residence should have first chance. Current situation allows more than the allotted tags to go to nonresidents.	Yes	Yes. Let the outfitters have 50% of a 10% nonresident split.	Yes
28	Nyles	Richards	Resident	I would leave it We don’t have points for the elk deer and antelope and Making some draw and others not would be confusing.	No	Make them all 90/10 for every species	Yes	Nope just 90/10 would be great for all species.	No	As long as there is still general and we go 90/10	Yes	Yep we love here	Yes	No we need to get rid of outfitting anywaus	No
29	Bill	Haeck	Resident	No , status quo for sure	No	No, status quo for	No	No, prefer the status quo	No	No, prefer status quo, don’t want to become Utah , Colorado ect!!	No	No, status quo is the only thing to do	No	No , status quo, no need for more landowner or outfitter charity as it is already abused and should no longer even be a thing !!	No
30	Phil	Hills	Resident	Any serious Sportsman know very well his or her odds of drawing a license that they choose to apply for. Not needed.	No	As a Wyoming Resident I like most anything that might make it easier for me to draw a license, However I recognize that a large percentage of G&F income comes from NonResident Hunters. The small change in me getting a license means less money for G&F to perform their good, important jobs. I think keeping the best income stream for G&F should be the priority.	No	This would function sort of like a preference point system. The reason for proposal #1 is now evident. Not sure this one is gonna be popular with those who reply. Effectively if a person draws a tough to get tag they will sit out 2 draws and be able to apply on the 3rd. Not sure this does much to increase drawing odds?? I would give this one a "maybe" if there was that choice.	Yes	I would favor this for antelope, deer and elk but NOT for Sheep and Moose.	Yes	Give the Non Residents an equal chance	No	Not in favor of Outfitter handouts. Bad idea. Most likely proposed by Outfitters. One would think that the Non Resident/Wilderness requirements should be plenty for the Outfitters.	No
31	Jeff	Berger	Nonresident	I am in favor of the status quo. I feel with the current trend of hunting in the western states, that before long all of the areas would be "high demand"	No	I am in favor of the status quo	No	I am not in favor of the High Demand designation for hunt areas. Would not have a problem with the waiting period for any first choice tags. Also think if a NR is in the waiting period they should not be allowed to buy Preference points.	Yes	I'm a NR, but would highly disagree with any BP or PP structure.	No	That is acceptable. Residents should have a preference	Yes	NO!!! Just another step to making hunting a rich man's game only. If the outfitters are reputable, they should not have any issue getting clients.	No
32	Chris	Crowell	Resident	Keep as is! The point of this whole task force was to fix and simplify g&f problems and to allow 90/10 for resident hunters, this proposal only complicates and increases complexity with no real benefit.	No	No, 90/10 ALL tags! No automatic rollover either of under applied tags. Sure seems this task force is truley trying to ruin wyoming resident hunting to benefit outfitters.	No	Hell no! The math doesnt show any benefit other than increased administraive burden and confusion.	No	No, keep true random	No	I am in favor but for this to truely work antelope automatic rollover must be removed. This will benefit residents and should of been incorporated into initial structure of process.	Yes	No! Outfitter welfare(set asides) has ruined hunting oppurtunities for normal blue color folks in every state that has incorperted them. Wyoming is the "equality state" show nonresidents we value them by keeping their odds fair and even with other nonresidents. They can choose to use a outfitter if they want once they do draw.	No
33	Chris	Steffen	Resident	Not if it comes with an outfitter set aside	No	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Hell no	No
34	Matthew	Young	Nonresident	Status Quo	No	Status Quo	No	Status Quo	No	Status Quo	No	Status Quo	No	Status Quo. Please no outfitter pool. Keep Wyoming’s wildlife, a public resource, public. Limiting nonresident licenses is the norm and justifiable. Wyoming certainly has that right. Commandeering license opportunity for the express benefit of a private business, however, is a violation of the North American Model. And it will lead to a retraction of acreage in your WIA/HMA program, hurting resident hunters, as well. Please no outfitter pool.	No
35	Seth	Franke	Nonresident	Sure if it helps give residents more tags I am for it.	Yes	I think that is generous to Nonresidents like myself, but I am for it as it gives residents more opportunities to get the best tags.	Yes	Opposed. Waiting periods are based on the theory that some people deserve tags more than others. In this case, recently drawn hunters are “less deserving” of drawing again than hunters who did not draw. That’s ridiculous. There are many other, better ways to help more residents draw good tags. For example, allow only one application for a high demand tag per year, i.e. pick a species. This makes hunters just apply for what they really want, and not pick up great tags that they are just lukewarm about.	No	Implementations of bonus point systems across our country have tanked draw odds. Hoards of people buy points even if they don’t really care about hunting that particular species, which blows up demand. Learn from everyone else’s bad mistakes and keep the good system in place - pure random. It can be a huge moneymaker for WG&F but it is terrible for hunters and hunting. Plus it heavily favors ground-floor point buyers and screws kids, young people, and future generations of hunters.	No	This really, really bad idea will just not die the death it deserves. A lot of WY residents ask for this, but really miss a MUCH better solution. The whole reason this is even a problem is a flaw with resident choices being limited to 1st, 2nd, 3rd. Some residents don’t get ANY tag with this system, and it’s stupid. The very simple fix is to give residents choices 1-10. Everyone gets a tag! It is 5 minutes of computer programming, and boom, fixed. You put the units you want choices 1-5 and then 6-10 put any tag you would be willing to take. Done.	No	Opposed! Keep the status quo. Republican lawmakers should never support anti-free market, anti-entrepreneurial, planned economy, garbage. Outfitted clients patronize different sectors of the economy than non-outfitted hunters. Artificially stuffing cash in outfitter and landowner pockets comes at the expense of grocers, convenience stores, motels, auto repair shops, and a host of other WY businesses, their employees, and employee families. If they all only knew this was openly being discussed as an actual idea. This shameless proposal is Robin Hood in Reverse. Outfitters should not be granted a handout just because they have wealthy, connected friends in high places.	No
36	Ryan	Caillet	Resident	In the favor of the status quo. WG&F already does a great job of providing draw statistics.	No	Only if you push ahead with the High Demand idea (which I oppose).	Yes	Prefer the status quo. Let people be responsible for the consequences of their applications (applying for high areas with low chance of drawing multiple years in a row).	No	Absolutely no bonus points for resident antelope, deer and elk.	No	Yes. Residents should be given a preference at each step.	Yes	No preference should be given to those who are able to pay for an outfitter vs. those who can't. This is the worst corruption of the North American Model of Conservation that I can think of. This is short sighted and alienates dedicated non-resident sportsmen who contribute so much to our state and its economy.	No
37	Ernest	Trujillo	Resident	How does this benefit resident hunters	Yes	It should be 90/10 all hunt areas	Yes	I favor a waiting period	Yes	I'm in favor of bonus points for deer, elk, & antelope only. Leave moose and sheep the fuck alone!	Yes	I support this. It should've happened years ago.	Yes	I only support 90/10, not 85/15. Switch it all to 90/10 and I'll support your proposal.	No
38	Ryan	Mauch	Nonresident	I am not in favor. What would be gained by doing this?	No	As a nonresident, I like 80/20 better on the split. I also understand residents wanting to move to 90/10. This would split the difference.	No	Just stay with the status quo. Wyoming has the best draw system!	No	Status quo	No	I prefer the status quo, but understand residents wanting to do this	Yes	No outfitter welfare! Outfitter tags is pure BS. If they are worth a damn they won’t need welfare tags to get clients.	No
39	Darren	Rhea	Resident	Ok	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	I am staunchly apposed to any outfitter licenses. This is socialistic welfare, period.	No
40	Doug	Furman	Nonresident	My opinion would depend on how those designations were used to manage hunting.	No	I think this is a reasonable compromise that gives residents and non residents some of what they want.	Yes	I have no problem with this suggestion.	Yes	I don't have a strong opinion on this.	No	I don't have a strong opinion on this.	No	This is a terrible idea and amounts to a subsidy for outfitters, at the expense of those who cannot afford their services. Wildlife is owned by the public in the North American model of wildlife management, not by businesses.	No
41	Remi	Warren	Nonresident	Keep status quo	No	Not in favor	No	Not in favor	No	In favor	Yes	Dont recommend	No	Not in favor	No
42	Trevor	Herrman	Resident	This seems to be reasonable	Yes	Like to see points zeroed for NR if they draw a full price license in any of the draws	Yes	Even though I've never drawn a license in what would be considered a high demand hunt area after 10 years, I think it should be left random, no waiting period.	No	No, never! Leave it a random draw.	No	I really don't care.	No	Do not do an outfitter poll. This is just not a good idea at all. Leave it status quo!	No
43	Justin	Smith	Resident	I agree with this reccomendation	Yes	I agree with this recommendation	Yes	I think this would create issues in other areas that are lower in demand. It would drive the demand up in those.	No	I agree with this recommendation.	Yes	I agree	Yes	I disagree	No
44	Josh	Lane	Nonresident	Please keep the status quo!!	No	Keep the status quo	No	Keep status quo	No	Status quo	No	Status quo	No	I definitely prefer the status quo here. Never have I saw such an attempt to privatize the wildlife by a group of people. All this is is outfitter welfare. I have no opposition to outfitters at all, or the services they offer, I believe they provide a good service, but if I had to contract with one to be able to hunt I would not be able to afford to do so. I also enjoy the DIY experience the planning and logistics that go into it. My family, including my Dad, three sons, uncle and myself will be out there this fall doing a mule deer hunt. My youngest is 12 and beyond excited, why would anyone want to diminish his excitement by taking away is ability to do what I have been doing, what he has been hearing about me doing for years is beyond me. We usually come out as a family group and if I told him we wouldn’t have as good of odds because a few outfitters wanted more tags and we can’t afford their service to increase our odds that he wouldn’t understand. The “outfitter” draw would take away tags from folks like me. I understand I’m a non resident but I do leave a fair bit of my dollars when I visit a state just not all with one entity. I would venture to say that those people who can on a regular basis can afford the service of an outfitter, would also be applying in the special draw which for the most part has better draw odds in and of itself. DEFINITELY STICK TO THE STATUS QUO. If I want better odds I can apply in the special draw. That is my choice.	No
45	Glenn	Owings	Resident	Status quo	No	Status quo	No	While I do not favor the HD/SD split, if it happens I am open to this concept.	No	Status quo is fine, or 50% random 50% preference, as was discussed early in this process.	No	This a reasonable benefit for residents, though I do not feel strongly in favor.	Yes	I am opposed to this change. The overwhelming majority of the comments from the last open comment period were against this change. If the Taskforce is listening to public comment, I'm not sure why it is included again. I don't mean to sound harsh but I truly don't understand why this would be on the comment form again, considering the volume of previous comments on this exact issue. I feel there is currently ample opportunity for outfitters to maintain a robust business in Wyoming thanks to outstanding wildlife resources, the wilderness outfitter rule, and current outfitters who do a great job. NR DIY opportunity carries inherent value and does bring money into the state's economy. I have several friends and family members coming from out of state this fall. They will buy groceries at Wyoming grocery stores, stay in WY's hotels, grab snacks at gas stations, and pick up last minute sporting goods at local stores. There is a balance to be struck between guided and unguided opportunities for NR's, and I think where we are right now is close to that balance.	No
46	Zach	Barrett	Resident	I agree with this if there is a waiting period and zero set asides for outfitters. I don’t know if a waiting period would help that much other than potentially drive more units in to a high demand area. Status quo.	No	This is ridiculous make the quota the same across the board. Why complicate it. 85/15 across the board 0 set aside for outfitters.	No	I agree to this if there is a waiting period for landowners as well.	No	No bonus points are do nothing and they will need to be changed in ten years when that system fails. Status quo.	No	Yes	Yes	I would rather virtually everything stays the same as long as this doesn’t happen. It is absolutely ridiculous that outfitters think they are owed something. I cannot say no to this enough, as I’ve commented as such before. I don’t know how many times people have to say no to this, take a hint.	No
47	Brad	Smith	Nonresident	I prefer the status quo	No	I prefer the current 85/15 split	No	I do not Support this	No	Prefer status quo	No	Status quo	No	I do not agree with this recommendation for several reasons. Firstly I believe this further pushes us away from the North American Conservation model and pushes us to a privatization of our wildlife. This measure would favor those that can pay their way to the front of the line and skipping past others just because they have money. Hunting has always been an American tradition that was rooted in family and sharing the experience of the outdoors with said family. It makes me sick to my stomach to Think of how many young hunters will miss this opportunity to have the amazing experience I got to share with my family as a child if this passes. The hunting tradition has always been available to everyone not just those with money or connections which is what makes the United States unique from a hunting opportunity stand point. With all that being said in my position today I am one of those that would actually benefit from this passing as I can afford to pay an outfitter or guide which inevitably would increase my opportunities to draw a tag, however I am aware enough to see that just because it benefits me personally; I understand that is not right or fair for the vast majority of hunters and being apart of the group that can afford this should not give myself or anyone else a free pass to the front of the line. To compound the facts stated above I do not believe in a welfare system for allocating tags to go straight to the outfitters and guides. I know Some will debate this isn’t welfare but anyway you slice it or dress it this is a welfare system designed to benefit outfitters, this would take an already limited resource and carving out half of that section for the privatization to benefit 1 group. I hope you take the time to read this comment and see the future ramifications this could have on wildlife and hunting and really think about what this would do to those who cannot afford To hire an outfitter and who look forward to hunting each fall. Thank you for reading	No
48	James	Bolton	Resident	No	No	No	No	No	No	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
49	Robert	Edwards	Nonresident	I much prefer status quo!	No	No, leave as status quo	No	Status quo is good, but I am not totally against this	No	This seems like an ok idea from the outside looking in as a NR	Yes	No	No	No outfitter welfare, if they are good outfitters they will have clients waiting. They already have Landowner/Private land opportunity and the Wilderness rule. If this passes I may very well throw in the towel in WY like I did when NM did this crap. Give us all a level playing field we already took a major hit from the new tag splits which is understandable, but this is just crooked!	No
50	Campbell	black	Nonresident	Not in favor	No	Not in favor	No	not in favor	Yes	In Favor	Yes	not in favor	No	not in favor	No
51	Brandon	Brown	Resident	This will not increase drawing odds in high demand areas but it will decrease drawing odds in easier to draw areas. After the first 3 years every area will be considered a high demand area!	No	Give more limited quota tags to residents. Increase non resident general tags. Do not create standard/ high demand elk areas. It will cause more problems than resolutions.	No	The draw system needs to remain the way it is. A random draw gives every applicant an equal opportunity to draw a tag. A waiting period will not increase drawing odds in anyway but will decrease drawing odds in easier to draw areas.	No	The draw system needs to remain as a random draw. A weighted point system will only decrease drawing odds and will have a massive negative impact on the future youth hunters.	No	Wyoming residents should have preference over non residents	Yes	No! There shouldn’t be a outfitters pool. Majority of non resident hunters are DIY hunters and they shouldn’t be forced into spending thousands of dollars to hunt with an outfitter.	No
52	Grant	Jerry	Nonresident	No, keep the status quo. This change will do nothing to help wildlife or hunter satisfaction in Wyoming.	No	I am not in favor of this recommendation. It does nothing to improve wildlife in Wyoming. The current allocation provides ample opportunity for resident hunters and appropriate opportunity for non-resident hunters.	No	No, this recommendation does nothing to improve wildlife in Wyoming and would not improve hunting for Wyoming residents.	No	No, please retain the status quo. It provides ample opportunity for Wyoming residents.	No	I am not in favor of this recommendation. Resident hunters have ample opportunity to acquire licenses during the initial draw. Leftover licenses are undersubscribed licenses.	No	I am not in favor of this recommendation. It is an absolutely outrageous proposal driven purely by the political influence of outfitters. It is an egregious violation of the North American wildlife conservation model that dictates an equitable, democratic distribution of opportunity for the public. It is an affront to DIY hunters everywhere. An hunter is free to hire an outfitter but forcing hunters to use an outfitter is counter to free market principles.	No
53	Wyatt	Guthrie	Nonresident	Not in favor - no change	No	Status quo	No	Status quo	No	Status quo	No	Status quo	No	Absolutely no	No
54	Deacon	Maloney	Nonresident	Updating every three years seems like a good idea to me.	Yes	Keep status quo to provide opportunity to nr and keep funding from nr	No	Landowners and landowner tags should fall under the same rule	No	Points systems just cause more problems in the long run	No	I am neutral on this	No	The guided requirement in wilderness areas is already a handout to guiding companies and detriment to the true origination of hunting. This just makes it even more of a pay to play game than it already is.	No
55	Rick	Duenas	Nonresident	No. Separating areas into high and standard demand will increase point creep and do nothing to improve objectives or opportunity.	No	No. This will decrease opportunity for hunters and reduce revenue for the state, which will hurt wildlife.	No	Yes, this will increase opportunity for hunters. Nevada has a similar system for antlered elk and pronghorn that increases fairness.	Yes	No. Squared bonus point systems hurt applicants' chances. As more applicants enter the system, every applicant's chance of drawing worsens, like in Nevada's system. Also, in any point system, applicants should ideally lose their points if any of their choices are drawn. Otherwise, point creep becomes a major factor like in Colorado's system.	No	No. If non-residents wanted these tags, they should have applied for them to begin with. Besides, the state (and therefore wildlife) receives more revenue from non-resident fees paid for a given tag than resident-priced fees.	No	No, this is a terrible idea. The state should not be responsible for guaranteeing income to outfitters at the expense of a public resource. That is outfitter welfare, through and through. This will also become a boys' club, where outfitters will only contract with their non-resident friends year after year. If outfitters want more clients, they need to work hard to solicit new customers. It's a free market.	No
56	Steven	Osminski	Nonresident	It is obvious from the draw odds what units are high demand.	No	Status quo works fine. Residents have their choice of what to apply for. Leftover tags from resident draw are typically areas residents don’t want to go such as areas with high grizzly populations.	No	Waiting periods would allow DIFFERENT residents to draw high demand tags. With the new 90/10 splits even general elk tags will be come once in a lifetime tags for non residents unless the are rich and skip the land buying landowner tags or land themselves.	Yes	All the WY residents I know are not in favor of points for deer, elk and antelope.	No	Wyoming residents already have a massive amount of opportunity for tags and selling unwanted resident tags at ridiculously inflated non resident prices is a big money maker for the state.	No	The few non residents who are able to draw a tag and hunt Wyoming should not be forced to hire an outfitter. In many cases they will, but it should be a choice, not a requirement. The outfitter industry already has a monopoly if a non residentt wants to hunt in federal designated wilderness. Only to hunt big game mind you, not fish, hike, explore without a big game tag. All this would do if cater to the rich and further destroy free market competition in the outfitter industry. An outfitter should earn their clientele with service, results, and reputation, not be given government handouts.	No
57	Jacob	Amerman	Nonresident	I prefer the status quo.	No	I prefer the status quo.	No	I prefer the status quo	No	I prefer unweighted bonus points	Yes	I prefer the status quo	No	Absolutely not. All this does is prop up fly by night operations and harm decent outfitters and take away opportunity from those of us who enjoy hunting and experiencing wyoming without a baby sitter.	No
58	Jason	Hutchins	Nonresident	Keep as is	No	Keep as is	No	Prefer status qou	No	Status qou. Young hunters starting out will be at a huge disadvantage.	No	Yes	Yes	Status qou. This is outfitter welfare	No
59	Rich	McMillan	Nonresident	Maintain the status quo. Splitting opportunity based on an arbitrary demand percent will lead to concessions made to special interests.	No	90/10 should be implemented across the board regarding the percent going to NR. It should not be based on demand. Residents should be given all opportunities to obtain tags first.	No	The high demand category should not be implemented and no waiting period is necessary if drawn.	No	No points. Just remain random and everyone has an equal chance and the system is simple to understand.	No	Residents should always have preference.	Yes	No to establishing an outfitter pool of NR tags. Currently I have the choice to hire an outfitter or not, providing welfare tags to them at the expense of the average NR (the little guy) flies in the face of the North American Model of wildlife management. Wildlife should not be privatized in any fashion. Same comments apply to tying landowners into the outfitter pool. Theses comments apply regardless the proportion of tags. If outfitters offer a good product they will have clients. If they do not offer a good product they won't. The government has no place providing this subsidy to private interests at the expense of a public resource being managed in trust for the citizens of Wyoming.	No
60	Kyle	Kuechle	Nonresident	I prefer status quo. As a non-resident who applies in many states I have always prefered Wyoming's relatively simple unit and tag allocation structure. I do not believe any attempt to change this structure will benefit residents or non-residents alike.	No	I would accept NR quotas that resident hunters deem fair. I am however against breaking units into high and standard demand.	No	I prefer status quo. De facto waiting periods are already in place given the preference point system. If someone gets lucky and draws more frequently in the random pool I can live with that.	No	Not applicable to me.	No	I would be in favor of this for residents that do not already hold a same type license. If this is a means for residents to pick up their third or fourth type 6 tag before anyone has had a similar shot I oppose.	No	I am sharply opposed to this. In my oppinion this line of thinking is what hurt hunting across the country. When those who can afford to pay are given preference to a shared resource over those who can not or do not wish to contract an outfitter, we have begun to unravel the foundation of sound wildlife management. I do not understand why one business group, in this case outfitters, should receive state sponsored welfare over others.	No
61	Luke	Provart	Resident	Leave the current draw system as it is. If you run the statistics on the extremely hard to draw units, the draw chances are basically unaffected. All this will do is put more pressure on those intermediately hard to draw units and make those drawing odds worse for no practical gain in the hard to draw units.	No	I am in support of a basic 90-10 split for resident to non-resident tag allocation, but the high-demand standard demand unit changes is a terrible idea. It will only make draw odds worse for residents who only apply in intermediately hard to draw units currently. Leave the allocation alone or simply make it 90-10 split. Why convolute the system with high-demand standard-demand draw units.	No	One of the greatest benefits of being a Wyoming resident is to be able to put in for the draw every year. This is a terrible idea and will only work to create harder draw odds for currently easier to draw units.	No	Point systems are always bound to fail. They seem like a great idea for the folks getting in when they are implemented but result in people down the line basically having no chance at drawing a tag. I do not support any point system for residents with any of our draws.	No	I would be in support of a resident only chance at the leftover tags list prior to opening it up to non-residents.	Yes	As a resident of Park County for 26 years I am highly opposed to this proposed change. Out of all the proposed recommendations this board has put forth this single topic is one that I am most against. It isn't only outfitters and landowners that benefit from non-resident hunters. Many other businesses in the state would be negatively effected by lost income from self-guided non resident hunters. Anytime we further commoditize wildlife, the closer to the European model we get. By putting higher price tags on wildlife we are making it a rich mans only game. The State of Wyoming holds our wildlife in public trust for ALL citizens of this State. Not just the Outfitters and Landowners. This is nothing short of a government subsidy to a specific group of business owners. As a landowner myself I am against this proposal. The wildlife of this State should be open and fairly allocated to all individuals who want to come and hunt them in this State. Outfitters are private business owners, they should have to market and operate their business just like any other business, in a free and open market. This is the government, taking a public resource and giving it, with no benefits to the public, to private entities for their own personal gain. Implementing this system will further hurt access to the public onto currently accessible private lands as it will incentivize private landowners to close hunting to only but their clients. I am NOT in support of this proposal, our State government should hold our wildlife in higher regard than this and not be giving out welfare to a single group of business owners.	No
62	Justin	Booth	Nonresident	okay with this	Yes	a 90/10 split is common in western states. It will decrease the amount of tag available to me as a NR but WY resident should get their fair share.	Yes	This should include general licenses for NRs as well. That is where it could have the most impact to curb point creep.	Yes	This will not affect me as a NR but I am not in favor of any point system. Random is the most fair . Youth that cant apply now are always behind in point systems.	No	If a resident really wanted a particular tag, they could select it in the initial draw and not need preference in the leftover.	No	This is a terrible idea. I absolutely do not support tags reserved for a outfitter pool. This is equivalent to a welfare type system. A state resource should not be reserved for a particular group just because they have a vested interest. Quality outfitters should and will remain busy and booked due to their EFFORTS rather than because people are forced into using them.	No
63	Jason	Williams	Nonresident	Prefer status quo	No	Prefer status quo	No	Waiting period could be instituted for all type 1 & 2 licenses.	No	Keep random	No	Keep status quo	No	This is a stupid idea, please stop proposing it.	No
64	Tony	Shumaker	Nonresident	Not in favor and prefer status quo. There isn’t anything wrong with the current system.	No	Status quo	No	Yes	Yes	Status quo	No	No, status quo	No	Absolutely a horrible proposition, why are outfitters getting guaranteed clients.	No
65	Kelly	Rosas	Nonresident	I am not in favor of this recommendation and would prefer the status quo. This strategy does not seem to be helping in New Mexico. Many of the High Demand branded hunts do not equate to more quality and I believe can lead to more hunter disapointment in the quality of the hunt after spending more preference points on the hunt.	No	As a non resident, I am grateful for anything over 10% of the tags being allocated to non- residents. In this case, I prefer the status quo.	No	I am not in favor of the waiting period. The hunts you are describing take a high amount of preference points and If you are lucky enough to draw in the random portion of the draw for that hunt in a consecutive year, lucky you!. A very small percentage of hunters are getting these high demand hunts twice in a year period. The current program is not hurting anyone. I prefer the status quo.	No	As a non-resident I have no opinion on this reccomendation.	No	I think that residents have plenty of opportunity to select these leftover hunts in the initial draw as a second or third choice. I prefer the status quo.	No	I feel that tags allocated to non-residents should be available to everyone. While I have hired outfitters in the past and will likely hire outfitters again in the future, not every hunter can afford to do so. I feel moving toward this allocation for outfitted clients only creates a barrier to entry for hunters and makes hunting a "rich Man's/Woman's sport". If a non resident is able to draw a tag, they should be able to make the choice on whether or not to hire an outfitter. Any outfitter who runs a quality operation will still get clients every year. The outfitters who run poor operations and cannot generate return clients on a yearly basis should not be supported by a "welfare" program like this. I am strongly opposed to this recommendation and quite frankly I am surprised that the task force even needs to ask this question to the public again since the first time you received overwhelming opposition to the proposal.	No
66	Michael	Marchese	Nonresident	No	No	Please do not make this change	No	Please do not make a waiting period.	No	This is a good idea.	Yes	No	No	No	No
67	Brandon	Lulloff	Nonresident	This would serve no purpose other than be a tool to charge more for high demand hunts.	No	You are making this way too complicated	No	No high demand hunts, why are all these questions about them?	No	weighted bonus points suck. keep it all random.	No	give everyone an equal chance	No	This is absolutely HORRIBLE. Its tag welfare and you know it! The hunters that come to Wyoming to hunt with an Outfitter do almost nothing for the state compared to the do it yourself type hunter to spends upwards of $1000 on local businesses while the outfitted client gets wine and dined in a fancy lodge.	No
68	gary	hoffacker	Nonresident	Everyone is already perfectly aware of high demand areas by the nature of preference points and the draw odds already posted online. What is the point in this?	No	This is ridiculous and the Wyoming Task force should be ashamed of themselves for even proposing something so IDIOTIC.	No	I have no problem with this. It will take a lot of people out of the random drawing and help everyone have a chance instead of one person getting lucky multiple times in a few years.	Yes	Not a bad idea but the applicants SHOULD LOOSE THEIR BONUS POINTS if they draw ANY TAG. IF you don't take their points you'll end up just like Colorado is currently.	Yes	THIS IS BULLSHIT.	No	THIS IS COMPLETE BULLSHIT. AND YOU ALL KNOW IT.	No
69	Randy	Newberg	Nonresident	I prefer the status quo. The current system is not broken.	No	This seems like a reasonable proposal.	Yes	As a non-resident, I don't see it as fixing anything worthwhile, but I defer to what Wyoming residents would want.	No	Point systems have shown to be ineffective at fixing tag allocation in high-demand units. Point systems do not solve the demand-supply problem. Point systems, whether for residents or non-residents, in every state implemented, are showing to be of no value unless you can roll through the number of applicants in less than four years. Beyond that, points systems have proven ineffective and of little value.	No	Residents should be given first priority over us non-residents.	Yes	As was commented on previous proposals that establish an outfitter pool this is going to displace a lot of resident hunters. Montana, my home state, had an outfitter pool at one time, eventually removed by state ballot initiative. During that period, outfitters used the guaranteed income streams and lower business risk to increase leasing at a very rapid pace. That caused a loss of the best properties enrolled in our public access program, a program similar to Wyoming's WIHA/HMA program, as the state program could no longer compete with the financial benefits of an outfitter pool. The hunters displaced by increased leasing and by the loss of properties in the public access program were primarily resident hunters. Wyoming has a neighbor to the north that did this experiment for ten years. There was a reason citizens eventually got rid of the program through a ballot initiative - it was damaging to hunting access for hunters and gave a small handful of businesses the quasi-ownership in the revenue stream of a public resource. I would suggest Wyoming not repeat the mistakes of Montana. Your resident hunters are who will pay the greatest price.	No
70	Remi	Letourneau	Nonresident	I believe 30% to be way too high to be classified "high-demand". I wouldn't consider anything below 10% high-demand. I am for the status quo.	No	Status quo. IMO NRs bring a tremendous amount of money into the state. As an NR, I've put thousands of dollars every fall for the past 5 years. This goes from up to 10 days in hotels a season, food, gas, etc.	No	How can you draw a high-demand tag on a Preference Point system within three years of drawing a high-demand tag other than with minimal random draw odds? In my opinion, this would only move those applications to "standard demand" tags, lowering those odds. You've robing Peter to pay Paul, moving applicants to different areas.	No	As an NR I have no opinion on this.	Yes	Most of those licenses were turned down by residents in the first place and a lot of those licenses roll over to the NR draw and assigned to NRs as Residents didn't want them.	No	This proposition is pure outfitter welfare and puts wealthy individuals constantly ahead of the line. This proposition would allow the rich to constantly apply and draw tags while other non residents are left fighting for the crumbs. Outfitted money goes mostly to outfitters and those involved directly with them. When a non resident applies without an outfitter, they are pumping a tremendous amount of money into local economies into business that have no affiliation with outfitters. Outfitted hunts for the most part are on private land and operate out of outfitters' accommodations, equipment, vehicles, etc. This, again, puts outfitters and their clients far much ahead of other applying residents, but also ahead of other enterprises who are not affiliated with the outfitting industry. When I go to Wyoming as a non resident, I give A LOT of my money to a wide spectrum of local businesses. This would also, in my opinion, greatly reduce the odds of the regular non resident applicants which in turn would reduce the overall number of applicants buying preference points in the long run. Wyoming would lose applicants, and their money, to other states... This will only make outfitters wealthier, their rich clients will in turn have MORE opportunities and finally take money away from overall Wyoming businesses who benefit from the DIY non residents. I'm all for residents taking control of their resources, but this is a blatant example of the rich getting preferential treatment over the masses and overall control of most of this public resource.	No
71	Jerry	Muething	Nonresident	Nonresidents have been purchasing points for over a decade and have hundreds of dollars in the game. It is unfair to move the goalposts/change the rules after an investment.	No	Unfair to change the rules after investment in preference points. 15% seems like a fair compromise.	No	Seems fair	Yes	Point creep denies youth any real chance of drawing.	No	Seems fair	Yes	This is welfare. A public resource should not be given preference to those that choose to hire a certain private business. I'm a former resident of Wyoming, and I do not want to hire an outfitter to have a decent chance of drawing a tag. Stop the special interest corruption!	No
72	michael	wallover	Resident	This is extremely detrimental to residents and Wyoming hunting culture as a whole. I would support this if it was for nonresidents only. To not be able to elk hunt in the areas closest to my home for 3 years after drawing a tag just doesn't make sense and does not solve anything. We have very few general units in the state. As it is now, I have a chance to draw again so I don't have to travel hours to hunt a general unit. Fuel Prices are not going down anytime soon. Do not punish Wyoming residents for being lucky enough to draw a tag close to their home. Why would you include type 9 in this when very few people archery hunt to begin with.	No	Wyoming Residents Should be the focus of Game and Fish. 90/10 splits make sense to keep wyoming traditions alive. Residents keep our communities viable and there should be a benefit to residents over nonresidnets.	Yes	Punishing residents for being successful in a draw is a terrible idea. This makes sense for NONRESIDENTS only. Waiting periods for residents after a successful draw on Antelop, Deer and elk will lessen the quality of life in Wyoming for its residents, cheapen Wyoming hunting culture and overtime will decrease the number of residents who participate in hunting culture. There are very few general units in the state so residents would not even be eligible to hunt areas closest to their homes discouraging them from even purchasing licenses meaning less revenue for Game and Fish. Making residents even more upset with game and fish will not help the relationship between the public and the department. This doesn't solve anything only creates more problems and distaste from Game and Fish as a whole.	No	Our population isn't changing by much. There is no reason to implement points for residents on elk, deer and antelope. Our population has actually shrunk so this doesn't make sense. if we make the right decisions on nonresident regs and limiting nonresident tags like the 90/10 this situation resolves itself. If it isn't broke don't fix it.	No	Absolutely residents should have a preference in the left-over drawings. Residents live in the communities, we ARE Wyoming.	Yes	Outfitting is a business that uses Wyoming resources while contributing little to the local communities. Giving them preference in the nonresident pool is egregious. Their fees and taxes to the state are minimal. Outfitting prices have continued to skyrocket so giving them preference over people who are looking to DIY more and more because of their price increases is corruption. It's their privilege to operate that business in Wyoming, they do not need any preferences over the general public.	No
73	Adam	Neff	Nonresident	No. Retain the status quo. The TF keeps asking the same questions and keeps getting the same general response from the public, LEAVE IT ALONE. Wyoming already has what many consider to be the best system for allocating wildlife resources. Don't mess with it.	No	No. Why is the TF trying to make a relatively simple system more complicated. Stay with the status quo.	No	Please stick with the status quo.	No	No. Bonus points are a gimmick, snake oil, fools gold, etc., stay away from them.	No	No I am not in favor of this.	No	I couldn't be more against this proposal. Under no circumstances should outfitters be subsidized over the common man, the DIY hunter. If outfitters can't compete then they need to review their services and try to modify them so that people actually see the value in what they're doing. It's called capitalism. Outfitters should have to play by the same rules as everyone else.	No
74	Ryan	Yelding	Nonresident	I am NOT in favor and do not support this recommendation.	No	I am NOT in favor and do not support this recommendation.	No	Yes, I am in favor of and support this recommendation.	Yes	I am NOT in favor and do not support this recommendation.	No	I am NOT in favor and do not support this recommendation.	No	I am NOT in favor and do not support this recommendation.	No
75	Matthew	Brown	Nonresident	What changes by designating high demand vs. standard demand? Does this imply a change in tag fees for different demand level units? Or is this just re-labeling for the sake of re-labeling? The only way to know the answer to that is to move on to the next question which involves adjusting quotas for different demand level units. Status quo is already a solid balance of value and rewarding those who stick with applying in Wyoming every year, it does not need to be changed.	No	As a non-resident, I am sure you don’t value my opinion on this the same way you value a resident’s opinion, and that is to be expected. One of the things that keeps me coming back to apply in Wyoming every year is the current tag allocation. This helps offset other not-so-appetizing rules in Wyoming such as the wilderness guide law. If you think it’s a good idea to give residents a couple more tags in high demand areas (this won’t reduce the clamoring from residents about how non residents are taking all the tags and ruining the state) and risk losing my application and point fees every year (along with many others I would bet) then more power to you. I think that is a bad business decision for the future funding of Wyoming wildlife departments and local communities. I think is a bad proposal for Wyoming, but if likely losing application dollars is worth the 2-3 additional resident elk tags in 124 next year then go for it.	No	I like this proposal. This will make people be more tactical about how they use their points and when they decide to go hunting. This is likely to result in more dollars from points as people are likely to save them to get a slightly better hunt. It will also allow more unique people to hunt Wyoming, which is how you get people to keep coming back.	Yes	I’m not a resident so I don’t have a dog in the fight, but based on what I see from other states, this is a bad idea.	No	This seems reasonable to me, as many of the leftovers are less desirable tags and would make sense for residents to get preference for things like cow tags and lower demand units	Yes	This has got to be the worst idea that you could possibly float. In fact, you have already floated it multiple times, always with significant public comments that always reinforce that this is a TERRIBLE idea. WYOGA is going to push for this until the end of time, but it will never be a good idea no matter what studies they “fund” with their own money to try and prove that it is. Please do not subsidize an industry that is already successful without it! Please do not give preference to those that can afford an outfitter at the detriment of those who can’t! This proposal goes against every fiber of the North American Wildlife Conservation Model in order to allow outfitters to bring back their repeat customers every year while your regular joe hunter sits on the sidelines dreaming of one day getting to hunt. Non residents bring in dollars in fuel/food/lodging that Wyoming communities may never see if that money all goes to an outfitter. That outfitter may spend it locally, but they also very well may not. Please, please do not do this.	No
76	Jeffrey	Guerard	Nonresident	I do not recommend this. It serves no useful purpose.	No	Not in favor. This quota recommendation will destroy nonresident hunting in Wyoming.	No	Not in favor. This also does not make sense. The current preference point structure makes it highly unlikely anyone would draw one of the "high demand" areas more than once every three years.	No	Not in favor	No	Once again, this is an attempt to destroy nonresident hunting in WYoming	No	Not in favor. This attempt to force nonresidents into hiring an outfitter will greatly effect who is able to hunt in WY. The cost of hiring an outfitter will make nonresident hunting in WY only available to the very few who are able to afford the high cost of an outfitter. This is so obviously a handout to the outfitters is hard to put into words.	No
77	Matthew	McCauley	Nonresident	There is no point in my view in doing this. The draw odds are readily available to anyone that wants to look them up. This is likely a first step towards monetizing high demand hunts even more than is already being done, which does not help wildlife.	No	The current split seems to be working just fine to me.	No	No, if you’re going to have a waiting period it has to apply across the entire board. You can’t have landowner and general tag carve outs, it totally defeats the point. The landowner exception feeds into incentivizing a pay to play type system and the point creep on the general tag will be huge.	No	You had me until the part where it says the applicant doesn’t lose their points if they draw their second or third choice. If the applicant draws any tag their points should be purged.	No	Finally, a decent proposition. As a nonresident of the state, I believe the residents should have top priority.	Yes	This is straight up outfitter welfare and is a terrible idea. Do not do this. I am strongly against this proposition. This is not fair to the nonresident DIY hunter and favors people with lots of money. That’s not what hunting should be about. Reject this proposition.	No
78	Jason	Snyder	Nonresident	Status quo. What does this accomplish?	No	Status quo, OR go 90/10 across the board. Keep it simple	No	Waiting period for ALL limited entry permits, not just select few	No	Status quo, bonus point systems always lead to heartache and requests to change them.	No	Sounds fair	Yes	Creating a guaranteed set aside pool of outfitter tags will only lead to further competition and demand for outfitter leasing. In the long run, both the resident and non-resident DIY hunters will suffer as a result. I have firsthand seen this happen in Montana, where public hunting areas such as block management were lost to outfitter lease because of high demand. In addition, private ranches would opt to lease to an outfitter so they could get guaranteed tags to hunt their ranch. This is a lose-lose for DIY hunters across-the-board.	No
79	Andrew	O'Neill	Resident	I prefer the status quo	No	I am not in favor of High Demand and Standard Demand designations for hunt areas.	No	I am not in favor of High Demand and Standard Demand designations for hunt areas.	No	I am not in favor of point systems for residents for deer, elk, and antelope.	No	I am in favor of residents having some preference in the leftover draw.	Yes	I am a little confused by this. Reading through the comments from the previous task force meeting, there seemed to be an overwhelming opposition to this proposal, and the board of outfitters has countered by proposing the outfitter pool to be at 50% rather than 40%? Having worked for a number of years for an outfitter, I have seen first hand that outfitted clients are far more likely to take advantage of the gear, meals and lodging provided by outfitters as opposed to DIY hunters who are more likely to purchase hunting gear, and spend money on food and lodging. I do not buy into the argument that local economies will be harmed by outfitters being unable to receive 50% of nonresident tags, in fact I believe this effort to phase out DIY nonresident hunters will prove to be much more damaging to local economies. I am not in favor of additional subsidies for outfitters, especially to the tune of half of all nonresident tags.	No
80	Will	Schwarzlose	Nonresident	Yes	Yes	No	No	Yes	Yes	I think residents have plenty of advantage in drawing tags.	No	Residents have enough advantage in applications	No	I don't think making it harder for nonresidents to draw and make DIY hunts is a good thing	No
81	Joshua	Watts	Nonresident	I am not in favor of this change	No	I do not support any reduction in non-resident tag allotments	No	I am not in favor of this proposal. If the area is actually a high demand unit, then the odds of drawing again with zero or few points is automatically built in. Until a person builds up enough points, their odds of drawing a high demand unit are slim anyway. This will do nothing except eliminate that person's odds of drawing in the random draw.	No	I do not support a bonus point setup for all species. I do support this for the trophy species (bison, moose, sheep, mountain goat)	No	I do not support this. Residents already get preference in the normal draw. They can also pick up general tags without drawing. Everyone should have equal footing in the secondary draw.	No	I am against this proposal. There should be no outfitter subsidizing of tags. By cutting the NR tag allotment in half to create this pool, you will virtually eliminate NRs from drawing some tough to draw units. This will inevitably deter NRs from applying or buying points. The vast majority of NR hunters are going DIY, so this would do nothing but hurt their odds, or force them to go guided. If a person wants to use an outfitter, fine. They should not have to apply in a separate pool that pulls tags away from people that want to go DIY.	No
82	Joseph	Bucci	Nonresident	Status quo	No	Status quo	No	Status quo	No	Status quo	No	Status quo	No	Status quo	No
83	Matt	Forrester	Resident	Pretty easy to determine demand on your own, seems like a waste of time.	No	Not in favor	No	This seems like a good idea	Yes	This is a bandaid, won’t help draw odds	No	Not in favor. Residents have plenty of opportunity on the Primary draws	No	Extremely opposed. This is outfitter welfare. Nonresidents should have a choice if they want to use an outfitter without reducing draw odds. If an outfitter does a good job and provides a good quality hunt, then his clients will increase. If he does a piss poor job, then they won’t book clients. This will also lead to outfitters catering to the highest bidder, and hunting will become a rich man’s sport.	No
84	Neil	Glick	Nonresident	I prefer the status quo, and am not in favor of designation of high-demand hunt areas.	No	I am in favor of the status quo for all hunt areas. However, if Wyoming sees fit to apply a 90/10 quota split across all hunt areas, I am not opposed to that change.	No	I prefer the status quo.	No	I don't have a strong opinion on this. If residents see this as an improvement, I support it.	Yes	I do not support this proposition. If residents are given priority via allocation in the first draw, I'm not sure why additional priority is needed in the leftover license drawing. Further, in the vast number of cases, current leftover licenses generally favor residents because private land access is necessary for many of those licenses to be of value. A few nonresidents will take advantage of those and hire an outfitter, but a much higher percentage of the leftovers end up only being useful to those with private land access, which are more likely to be WY residents than nonresidents.	No	I am opposed to this proposition. I do not support raising financial barriers to nonresidents wishing to hunt in Wyoming. I was able to bring each of my three children to Wyoming for a big game hunt during their senior year of high school. I would not have been able to do so had I needed to pay an outfitter for services on each of those hunts. If 50% of NR licenses had been unavailable to non-guided NR applicants, my children would not likely have been able to draw licenses to allow them to participate. Those treasured memories from those once in a lifetime experiences are priceless to me and to my children, and I am forever grateful to Wyoming for the opportunity provided to "average" folks like us. I also do not support subsidizing the guiding industry by guaranteeing tags to outfitted clients. This proposition would further monetize what should be a public resource managed for the benefit of a broad cross section of both Wyoming residents and nonresidents rather than with bias toward the benefit of outfitters and their clients.	No
85	marc	zachary	Nonresident	status quo	No	status quo.The current Res/non Res splits function just fine.	No	status quo. You won't be "fixing" a broken system, instead just breaking it in a different way.	No	status quo	No	status quo	Yes	status quo	No
86	Lance	Gooder	Nonresident	Status quo.	No	Status quo.	No	This is a good idea assuming everyone is held to the same standards and there are no exceptions to the waiting period.	No	This is a good idea for adding some degree of certainty for resident applications.	Yes	Status quo	No	Absolutely not. This is a terrible idea for everyone except the outfitters cashing in on this welfare handout. It will impact resident hunters by increasing leasing fees for property, driving game off public land onto private and make guides more competitive with diy resident hunters.	No
87	Karl	Weiby	Nonresident	No, I feel like this would lead to all draw areas becoming “high demand” most draw areas are within these limits now	No	Not in favor. Will not fix any current issues	No	Not in favor of waiting periods	No	It in favor of, but if a weighted system is out in place, make it so that everyone has opportunities. I would also suggest the use of points for second draw tags. Colorado does not take points after the first choice and the point creep issue is horrible	No	Approve. Residents should always have a priority	Yes	Not in favor, if outfitters are doing their job correctly, they shouldn’t need reserved tags to sell hunts. It’s a horrible idea. It makes it a rich man’s sport. Very few can afford an outfitted hunt anymore. And is there really a need for outfitted hunts in the desert units of the southwest? Some like an outfitter, but many can do those hunts on their own	No
88	Erik	Ellis	Nonresident	I don't see any usefulness to this proposal, those invested in the draw process already know this information and there are several services that provide draw odd information and predictions. I'd rather see the funding and effort this would require go to actual wildlife management.	No	Your proposal does not clarify whether it applies only to limited entry units or if general type 1 tags would be included. I prefer the status quo.	No	In this proposal it seems general licenses wouldn't be considered high demand, but it is not clear whether someone who is in the waiting period can apply for 1st choice type 1 etc in standard demand units. The statement says ineligible for 3 years for high demand, but the following statement about what can be applied for in the waiting period says nothing about standard demand units. These types of proposals involve significant changes and they should be easy to understand. I think the proposals should be written more clearly and all aspects addressed before they are presented to the public.	No	I don't have an opinion on this topic.	No	I don't like this proposal, leftovers should be equal opportunity.	No	I am strongly against this proposal, hunting should not be a rich person's game, hunting is supposed to be about getting food for the family, not paying insane amounts of money to have someone point you to a trophy animal. The special draw is already enough of an advantage for the well off, absolutely should not be tag welfare for rich people. Wyoming has always been my first choice for out of state hunting, but with proposals to first reduce overall NR tags and then give half of them to the rich who often don't even eat the meat from the animals they kill, I fear it will be extremely difficult for the average person to get a tag. I make a point of supporting as many small businesses in rural locations as I can as I travel through the state, outfitter hunters tend to support bigger businesses in more urban and wealthy areas and give most of their money to the outfitter, many of which are not even Wyoming residents and do not keep the money local. People complain about welfare for people who are starving, and then support ridiculous ideas like pay to play welfare for rich people who are used to buying their way through life. Let them draw their tags with the peasants.	No
89	Eric	Adams	Resident	I’m in favor of making this designation	Yes	I’m in favor or 90:10 split. In this process there has been some serious resistance to the idea of give it outfitter ms set asides as part of the “great compromise”. I don’t really care as this doesn’t affect residents and there is valid arguments both for and against “set asides” I’m concerned that the set aside component may derail other more important issues than that the committee is tasked with so for this reason and the fact that it doesn’t make that big of a deal overall I could go either way. The task force should count the comments and if 90:10 comes with set asides as part of the compromise they should do what most resident sportsman want.	Yes	Yes, I’m in favor of this. Draw a high demand license and get in the back of the line. Let the people who are in their waiting period apply after everyone else has their first pick. Great idea strongly support!!!	Yes	Yes, I’m in favor of weighted points. This in concert with the waiting periods will have positive effects on high demand areas. At a very minimum it will eliminate the person who draws 2-3 of these permits in a 10 year period. It’s important to keep in mind any point system does not affect overall odds. It’s simple math you have to add opportunities or take applicants out of the draw pool. A weighted system is the best point system and should straighten out the draw order while still being acceptable for kids and new hunters. Lastly, there is a lot of discussion about “points creep”. “Points creep” happens in states without point systems, creep is not caused by the point but rather by too little opportunities and too many applicants.	Yes	Yes I support resident preference. it’s especially important if the high demand area goes forward	Yes	I’m generally neutral on this as I’ve heard valid arguments both for or against. If 90:10 happens then we should. If 90:10 doesn’t happen the no way. It doesn’t affect residents but it appears to be a hot button issue so if it doesn’t have resident support I’m willing to walk away from 90:10 and outfitter set asides. Count the resident vote (comments). This is the the resident task force and no preference should be given to non resident comments drummed up by outfitters or DIY non residents either. Transparency is very important under no circumstances should this pass if residents do not support it	No
90	Cory	Smith	Nonresident	The status quo has worked so why mess with it now?	No	I am a NR and still think the Residents should have the majority of tags. 10% to NR's in All areas is fine with me.	No	I want my kids and grandkids to have an opportunity (albeit small) every year to hunt Wyoming.	No	Keep the system as it is. No changes.	No	Give them their 90% in the initial draw. After that, it's the same for everyone.	No	I have used outfitters in Wyoming as recently as last year and my answer is an emphatic NO. Why give welfare to them? I spend way more money on hotels, restaurants and fuel when I'm hunting DIY than I do with an outfitter. Wyoming small businesses lose when I go with an outfitter. Make them earn their living just like the rest of us. No, to outfitter welfare.	No
91	Eric	Pulis	Nonresident	Status quo	No	Not in favor	No	In favor	Yes	I would prefer that if you obtain a tag for that species (all types and antlerless) your points are purged.	No	Agree	Yes	No. Outfitters are savvy business owners they do not need the state of Wyoming giving them special treatment.	No
92	Kevin	Rembert	Nonresident	I Prefer the status quo, No reason to change anything	No	prefer the status Quo, as a nonresident and have invested years worth of points in wyoming We will be getting the short end of the stick.	No	prefer the status quo	No	prefer status quo	No	prefer status quo	No	Not in favor, prefer the status quo	No
93	Christopher	Harrell	Nonresident	For	Yes	For	Yes	For	Yes	For	Yes	Against	No	Against	No
94	Luke	Rein	Nonresident	This is primarily an issue for residents to decide though as an NR I would prefer status quo.	No	This is primarily an issue for residents to decide though as an NR I would prefer status quo.	No	Status Quo	No	As an NR I have no opinion on this. Though I will say, as a Colorado Resident I want to warn Wyoming that leading down the path of Bonus Points and Preference points is a path of chaos. I would urge Wyoming to stick with Random Draws at every turn for their residents. Nothing starts squeezing out new hunters faster at having a chance at higher demand tags than bonus points and preference points. This over time leads to a system that guarantees anybody starting out hunting will not draw that tag in their lifetime. Or, in the case of Bonus Points, anyone starting out can basically assume they will never draw the tag.	No	I would prefer status quo as a non resident. But residents should do what the feel is best for them and provides them the most benefit.	No	I'm strongly, strongly non in favor of this as a non resident. For starters, from the 2015 data only 23.5% of non resident hunters are guided. Where is the rational for 50%? That's artificially increasing the demand for something. Actually, it's the government increasing the demand for something... we all know what that's called. There is no good reason to guarantee outfitters tags. We have to just call this what it is, it's Outfitter Welfare, Outfitter Subsity, Outfitter Bailout, Outfitter Handouts. Pure and simple, there is literally nothing else to call it but any one of those. Choose your favorite. It's the government taking a public resource held in trust by the residents of Wyoming and choosing who gets to profit off it: the Outfitters. It's not the people of Wyoming reaping any benefit, all the money that would be flowing to hotels, restaurants, gas stations, short term rental hosts, etc. Is now being dictated by the government that it goes to outfitters, their cooks, their guides, and of course, the landowners pockets. How many absentee landowners are there running big ranches and outfitting operations? How much of that profit is even staying in state? When someone goes guided, they travel to the ranch and they stay at the ranch. They don't frequent local restaurants, coffee shops, and donut shops like NR DIY hunters do. They don't fill up their truck with gas multiple times because they are driving around to different trailheads. They spend money on a guided hunt that ultimately lines the pockets of the landowner who may or may not even be a Wyoming resident. This is the government picking winners and losers in private business. Let's not forget to mention the fact that commercial interests prevailing in the profiting of public wildlife is antithetical to the North American Model of Wildlife Management. And now the government is choosing, and propping up, a business that is solely dedicated to profiting off public wildlife? It's disgraceful. I can' disagree more with such a proposition. If people want to draw an NR tag and use and Outfitter, let them. Good outfitters who provide a quality service will draw in clients. But they don't need the government to provide clients for them in the name of guaranteed outfitter tags. If outfitters want to succeed, provide a quality service. That's how business works. It doesn't work by the government providing them the means to succeed. Leave it be. Status quo.	No
95	Travis	Ward	Nonresident	status quo	No	yes	Yes	in favor	Yes	status quo	No	no	No	absolutely not!	No
96	Joe	Cossey	Nonresident	No I am not in favor and prefer the status quo.	No	No I am not in favor of cutting the tags for non residents. Seeing how thats where majority of money comes from.	No	No not in favor	No	no	No	No I feel there should be a equal chance for both residents and non residents.	No	No I am a DIY hunter and feel that this bill lessens the opportunity for DIY hunting. A person is going to choose to use a outfitter regardless of the proposal.	No
97	Clay	Oliverson	Nonresident	I do not support this.	No	I would prefer the status quo	No	I am against waiting periods	No	I am for preference points	Yes	I am against Resident preference and would like to see the leftover draw stay the way it is.	No	I am disgusted that Outfitter set asides are even being discussed. I would expect much better from the Wyoming Task force. This form of outfitter welfare goes totally against the North American model of wildlife management. These are not the King animals. They are public animals that the State of Wyoming manages for its people. I would highly recommend that the Wyoming Task Force reject any type of outfitter set aside and keep tag distribution random and fair for the non-resident hunters who love to hunt you great state. Please, do not go through with this. It will be a stain on your great state and on the Task force as a whole. Do the right thing and vote no to the outfitter welfare program.	No
98	Ben	Lamb	Nonresident	This just puts more focus on the less in-demand areas, creating a rush to get to those.	No	90/10 all the way. Make it equitable and not a game.	No	Not a bad idea, but should have a sunset to ensure that it is working.	Yes	Bonus points are a bad idea in general and squaring points just makes everyone miserable with more points.	No	Wildlife is managed for the Residents. NR hunting is a privilege. Let the residents get first crack at the leftovers.	Yes	Outfitters should learn how to run a business w/o a captive market. No set asides.	No
99	Stephen	Humphreys	Nonresident	it would be helpful to know the odds of drawing as well as the high draw areas.	Yes	Leave as it is.	No	Not sure how much of a problem this is...	Yes	Only if they have to "sit out" for three or more years afterwards.	Yes	Seems as though you already have enough recommendations to benefit the residents.	No	Just another avenue of commercialization of hunting...and it appears that there is little imagination in the proposals...remove "south dakota" and insert "wyoming" and you have your current proposals.	No
100	Todd	Cogle	Nonresident	No	No	No	No	If the previous measures are instituted this should be as well. Waiting periods should be instituted regardless of other outcomes anyway.	Yes	Prefer status quo	No	No	No	No, outfitters should not be gifted and public resource.	No