Phase 2 wrap up jim jeffress chairman
Download
1 / 60

Phase 2 Wrap-Up Jim Jeffress, Chairman - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 227 Views
  • Updated On :

Phase 2 Wrap-Up Jim Jeffress, Chairman. Final – March 21, 2008 TAAHC meeting Winnemucca, Nevada. In this presentation the TAAHC is addressing the last remaining “Application Hunt” topics from the Topic List

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Phase 2 Wrap-Up Jim Jeffress, Chairman' - Jeffrey


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
Phase 2 wrap up jim jeffress chairman l.jpg

Phase 2Wrap-UpJim Jeffress, Chairman

Final – March 21, 2008

TAAHC meeting

Winnemucca, Nevada


Tag allocation and application topics agenda l.jpg

  • In this presentation the TAAHC is addressing the last remaining “Application Hunt” topics from the Topic List

  • These topics presented in this presentation were first reviewed at the February 8, 2008 TAAHC meeting as an “informational” agenda item. The committee made only “preliminary positions” at that time. Final motions were made at the March 21, 2008 meeting and are reflected

  • This PowerPoint presentation is the third in a series of three presentations created by the TAAHC to memorialize committee research and actions taken related to “Application Hunt” topics. Future efforts of the TAAHC will soon transitioning to “Tag Allocation” topics and will be addressed in a follow-on series of PowerPoint presentations

Tag Allocation and Application Topics – Agenda

1


Agenda remaining application hunt topics l.jpg
Agenda - remaining “Application Hunt” topics from the Topic ListRemaining Application Hunt Topics

2


Tag allocation and application topics application fees l.jpg

  • A.2.1 Raise Application Fees remaining “Application Hunt” topics from the Topic List

  • Historically the contract has had a set amount identified for programming changes that may arise from Commission action during the duration of the contract, so raising the fee isn't necessary

  • Contract has contingency fund which is 10% of the contract to cover contingencies (increase in postage costs, #s applications, etc.)

Tag Allocation and Application Topics – Application Fees

3


Tag allocation and application topics application fees5 l.jpg

What’s entailed in the application fees? remaining “Application Hunt” topics from the Topic List

Tag Allocation and Application Topics – Application Fees

4


Tag allocation and application topics application fees6 l.jpg

Applications in Fiscal Year 2007: July 1, 2006 – June 30, 2007

Tag Allocation and Application Topics – Application Fees

5


Tag allocation and application topics application fees7 l.jpg

Contract Costs 2007

Tag Allocation and Application Topics – Application Fees

NDOW Application Hunt Expenditures FY07

Salaries $83,775.02

Printing $68,802.10

$152,577.12

NDOW per-application cost for FY07 = $1.02

6


Tag allocation and application topics committee position l.jpg

A 2007.2.1 Raise Application Fees

Committee Final Position:

“Leave as is” - make no change to current process.

Tag Allocation and Application Topics – Committee Position

7


Tag allocation and application topics piw bp fees l.jpg

Tag Allocation and Application Topics – PIW & BP Fees

8



Slide11 l.jpg
Tag Allocation and Application Topics – Bonus Point Only Applications By Year By Species/Characteristic

10


Tag allocation and application topics piw bp fees12 l.jpg

Tag Allocation and Application Topics – PIW & BP Fees

11


Tag allocation and application topics committee position13 l.jpg

A.2.2 Raise PIW and Bonus Point Fee Applications By Year By Species/Characteristic

Committee Final Position:

“Leave as is” - make no change to current process.

Tag Allocation and Application Topics – Committee Position

12


Tag allocation and application topics transfer tag to youth l.jpg

A.3.4 Transfer of Tags to Youth Applications By Year By Species/Characteristic

Background –Youth Applications Since 1998

Tag Allocation and Application Topics – Transfer Tag to Youth

13


Tag allocation and application topics tags available to youth l.jpg

  • Why did 500+ youth not draw youth tags in the main draw? Applications By Year By Species/Characteristic

  • There were 3,000 tags allocated in the youth quota

  • There were 3,087 applications for youth tags

  • There were 454 tags remaining after the first draw

  • Youth are selective in where they are applying

Tag Allocation and Application Topics – Tags Available To Youth

14


Tag allocation and application topics transfer tag to youth16 l.jpg

  • Issues regarding transfer of tags Applications By Year By Species/Characteristic

  • NRS 502.140 would need to be changed. It is currently unlawful to transfer a tag to another or use a tag issued to another person

  • Would the youth need to be related? If so to what extent? (consanguinity)

  • What if the youth is not currently in the application file? An application would need to be added and the nonrefundable fees collected

  • "eBay" syndrome – offers of transfers might be made on “eBay”

Tag Allocation and Application Topics – Transfer Tag to Youth

15


Tag allocation and application topics committee position17 l.jpg

A.3.4 Transfer of Tags to Youth Applications By Year By Species/Characteristic

Committee Final Position:

“Leave as is” - make no change to current process.

Tag Allocation and Application Topics – Committee Position

16


Tag allocation and application topics transfer tag to youth18 l.jpg

  • A.3.6 Allow Youth to Fill a General Tag Holder’s Tag Applications By Year By Species/Characteristic

  • Similar to A3.4.

  • NRS 502.140 would need to be changed. It is currently unlawful to transfer a tag to another or use a tag issued to another person

  • Would the youth need to be related? If so what to what extent? (consanguinity)

  • "eBay" syndrome – offers of transfers might be made on “eBay”

Tag Allocation and Application Topics – Transfer Tag to Youth

17


Tag allocation and application topics committee position19 l.jpg

A.3.6 Allow Youth to Fill a General Tag Holder’s Tag Applications By Year By Species/Characteristic

Committee Final Position:

“Leave as is” - make no change to current process.

Tag Allocation and Application Topics – Committee Position

18


Tag allocation and application topics youth and adult hunt l.jpg

A.3.7 Youth and Adult Draw Same Tag Applications By Year By Species/Characteristic

Youth and Adult Hunt – Concepts

Tag Allocation and Application Topics – Youth and Adult Hunt

  • Desire for a “mixed” youth and adult hunt to coordinate schedules

  • Some desire for a youth to obtain a tag “no matter what”

  • In effect, something similar has been done with the “mixed residency” party hunt for deer

  • Currently, youth and adults can draw the same tag if they apply as a party for 1331, 1341, 1371, 1181

19


Tag allocation and application topics committee position21 l.jpg

A.3.7 Youth and Adult Draw Same Tag Applications By Year By Species/Characteristic

Committee Final Position:

“Leave as is” - make no change to current process.

Tag Allocation and Application Topics – Committee Position

20


Tag allocation and application topics youth and adult hunt22 l.jpg

A.4.1 Youth / Adult Mixed Party Applications By Year By Species/Characteristic

Statistics

  • 3,287 “Youth” applied in the 2007 Big Game Draw Deer Hunt

    • “Youth” defined as “born on after 8/1/1991”

    • Doesn’t include rejected applications

    • Includes 1331, 1341, 1371, 1181 and 1107 Hunts

    • 2,690 of these “Youth” applied in the 1107 “Youth” Hunt

    • 597 of these “Youth” applied in the 1331, 1341 1371 or 1181 Hunts

    • 53 of these 3,287 “Youth” applied for bonus points, 48 in Buck Deer Hunts and 5 in the “Youth” hunt

Tag Allocation and Application Topics – Youth and Adult Hunt

21


Tag allocation and application topics youth and adult hunt23 l.jpg

Issues Applications By Year By Species/Characteristic

  • Should a Mixed Party Youth/Adult hunt remain true to the original “all go” or “none go” concept of the party hunt? Or should tags be issued to members of the party if sufficient for either all adult or all youth?

  • Youth may benefit unfairly in the youth hunt if the “all go” or “none go” concept is abandoned. Namely the adult members of the parties may not go but may contribute the benefit of their bonus points to the likelihood of drawing.

  • If the “all go” or “none go” concept is retained it may leave more junior tags leftover.

Tag Allocation and Application Topics – Youth and Adult Hunt

22


Tag allocation and application topics youth and adult hunt24 l.jpg

Youth and Adult Hunt – Programming Applications By Year By Species/Characteristic

  • Could youth use “adult quota”? Or would all youth be tied to youth quota only?

  • Need to add a bucket for youth quota on the “adult hunts”

  • Need to modify draw process to use other quota buckets

  • Need to convert existing Bonus Points for use in hunt

  • Need to modify tag printing process for Hunt Descriptions

  • Approximate cost (depending on ultimate path chosen): $12,000

Tag Allocation and Application Topics – Youth and Adult Hunt

23


Tag allocation and application topics committee position25 l.jpg

A.4.1 Youth / Adult Mixed Party Applications By Year By Species/Characteristic

Committee Final Position:

“Leave as is” - make no change to current process.

Tag Allocation and Application Topics – Committee Position

24


Tag allocation and application topics party elk and antelope applications l.jpg

A.4.1.1 Party Applications for Antelope Applications By Year By Species/Characteristic

and Cow Elk

Administrative Issues

  • Additional forms to go to the License agents and to be mailed to those clients still applying on paper

  • NAC 502.4185 would need amendment to include species other than deer

Tag Allocation and Application Topics – Party Elk and Antelope Applications

25


Tag allocation and application topics party cow elk and antelope applications l.jpg

Party Elk and Antelope Apps in Utah 2007 Applications By Year By Species/Characteristic

Tag Allocation and Application Topics – Party Cow Elk and Antelope Applications

26


Tag allocation and application topics party cow elk and antelope applications cost estimate l.jpg

Party Cow Elk And Antelope Apps in Nevada Applications By Year By Species/Characteristic

  • Modifications to Web Applications Process – Estimated to be $3,000

Tag Allocation and Application Topics – Party Cow Elk and Antelope Applications – Cost Estimate

27


Tag allocation and application topics committee position29 l.jpg

A.4.1.1 Party Applications for Antelope Applications By Year By Species/Characteristic

and Cow Elk

Committee Final Position:

“Leave as is” - make no change to current process.

Tag Allocation and Application Topics – Committee Position

28


Tag allocation and application topics hold piw draw first l.jpg

A.9.2 Hold the PIW Draw First Applications By Year By Species/Characteristic

  • Administrative issues

  • Petition accepted by the commission for Silver State Tag--the petition requests the draw for such tags to be before the main draw

  • Currently, PIW fee is charged or deducted from refund after the draw and only to those applicants that marked their desire to participate in PIW but were unsuccessful. In holding the PIW first, all applicants for PIW would be charged the PIW fee, not just the unsuccessful. This would make the fee in addition to the nonrefundable and/or tag fees that would be submitted

  • NAC 501.427- 502.429 would need to be amended

  • Programming will be involved.

Tag Allocation and Application Topics – Hold PIW Draw First

29


Tag allocation and application topics hold piw draw first31 l.jpg

Impact of Drawing PIW Before Other Tags Applications By Year By Species/Characteristic

Tag Allocation and Application Topics – Hold PIW Draw First

30


Tag allocation and application topics committee position32 l.jpg

A.9.2 Hold the PIW Draw First Applications By Year By Species/Characteristic

Committee Final Position:

“Leave as is” - make no change to current process.

Tag Allocation and Application Topics – Committee Position

31


Slide33 l.jpg

A.9.3 Order of the Draw – Run All 1 Applications By Year By Species/Characteristicst Choices, then all 2nd Choices, etc

2007 Big Game Draw Results – Number of Clients drawing their first, second, third, fourth or fifth choices:

Tag Allocation and Application Topics – Allocate Tags first by looking at all 1st Choices, then 2nd Choices, etc.

32


Slide34 l.jpg

2007 Big Game Draw Results – Number of Clients drawing their first, second, third, fourth or fifth choices (continued):

Tag Allocation and Application Topics – Allocate Tags first by looking at all 1st Choices, then 2nd Choices, etc.

33


Slide35 l.jpg

Administrative Issues their first, second, third, fourth or fifth choices (continued):

  • Draw process would be lengthened significantly as many applications would have to be drawn more than once

  • Having multiple hunter choices would become meaningless for many hunts. By the time the draw would get to someone’s third choice it most likely have been issued in the first choice round of the draw

Tag Allocation and Application Topics – Allocate Tags first by looking at all 1st Choices, then 2nd Choices, etc.

34


Tag allocation and application topics committee position36 l.jpg

A.9.3 Order of the Draw – Run All 1 their first, second, third, fourth or fifth choices (continued):st Choices, then all 2nd Choices, etc

Committee Final Position:

“Leave as is” - make no change to current process.

Tag Allocation and Application Topics – Committee Position

35


Tag allocation and application topics hold youth draw earlier like nr guided draw l.jpg

A.9.3.3 Hold Youth Draw Earlier like NR Guided/Main Draw Now

  • Administrative issues

  • Mostly an educational issue

  • Back in 1990/1991 the Department went to the “Quick Draw process”, drawing as many hunts as possible in a draw to minimize administrative costs (i.e., postage, printing brochures, envelopes) and to simplify the application process for the public. It also reduced the number of deadlines for the public to be concerned about

  • Would change the operational cost structure through loss of economies of scale

Tag Allocation and Application Topics – Hold Youth Draw Earlier – Like NR Guided Draw

36


Tag allocation and application topics committee position38 l.jpg

A.9.3.3 Hold Youth Draw Earlier like NR Guided/Main Draw Now

Committee Final Position:

“Leave as is” - make no change to current process.

Tag Allocation and Application Topics – Committee Position

37


Tag allocation and application topics goat choices l.jpg

A.9.4.1 Expand Goat Choices Beyond One Now

  • Administrative issue

  • At the time this was implemented there were only two choices for goat. This request if very doable only an NAC 502.4175 amendment required

Tag Allocation and Application Topics – Goat Choices

38


Tag allocation and application topics committee position40 l.jpg

A.9.4.1 Expand Mt. Goat Choices Beyond One Now

Committee Final Position:

Committee motioned to allow 3 hunter choices for Mt. Goat and up to 5 hunter choices if the opportunity ever arises.

Tag Allocation and Application Topics – Committee Position

39


Tag allocation and application topics mt lion tag l.jpg

A.9.6 Mt. Lion Tag with Other Tag in Draw Now

  • Administrative issue

  • Already approved

  • Requested by the Director to address concerns from the 2007 legislature. The License Officewas directed to go forward with the ability to apply for mountain lion during the big game application process and on paper

  • Programming estimate, $9,900 and identified in the current contract as a separate line item

  • To be implemented for 2008 big game application process

Tag Allocation and Application Topics – Mt. Lion Tag

40


Tag allocation and application topics committee position42 l.jpg

A.9.6 Mt. Lion Tag with Other Tag in Draw Now

Previously approved by the commission. Actions pending to introduce this tag purchase opportunity into the big game draw process for 2008.

Tag Allocation and Application Topics – Committee Position

41


Tag allocation and application topics earlier results l.jpg

A.9.11 Earlier Draw Results Now

Background

  • There is a desire to have earlier results than the current third week of June posting date

  • The draw is typically run in late May or early June

  • There are a series of processes that are serial in nature and the draw results (including eMails) depend on this sequence. The HTML results pages on the web site are dependent on less steps

  • Results eMails are ready to send BEFORE the snail mail results letters are sent, but are held until Letters are dropped in the mail

  • Phone calls and questions start AS SOON as results are made available. Operators NEED the data to be able to answer these questions

Tag Allocation and Application Topics – Earlier Results

42


Tag allocation and application topics earlier results44 l.jpg

Earlier Draw Results – Current Steps Now

  • Draw – Run on a standalone machine from a copy of the SQL data base -- Typically 3 to 4 hours

  • Backup Local SQL data base for relocation to the SQL server – Typically 1 hour

  • Copy Local backup to DVD. Typically 1 hour

  • Restore Local backup to the SQL server – Typically 1 hour

  • Update Generic Hunt #’s with either successful Hunt # or Hunt # of first choice for unsuccessful Applications – Typically 1.5 hours

  • Create Tag and License Refund Records – Typically 2 hours

Tag Allocation and Application Topics – Earlier Results

43


Tag allocation and application topics earlier results45 l.jpg

Earlier Draw Results – Current Steps (cont) Now

  • Sort Tags & Licenses to Mailing sequence (by SCF and Zip Code, etc.) with PRO-SORT – Typically 2 hours

  • Print Tags (multiple machines, multiple shifts) – Typically 2 to 4 days

  • Print Standalone Licenses – Typically 1 to 2 days

  • Create Refunds & Balance – Typically 4 to 6 hours to create refunds and 2 days for balancing and corrections

  • Create Results Letters & eMail Text – Typically 4 to 6 hours

  • Sort Letters to Mailing sequence (by SCF and Zip Code, etc.) with PRO-SORT – Typically 2 hours

Tag Allocation and Application Topics – Earlier Results

44


Tag allocation and application topics earlier results46 l.jpg

Earlier Draw Results – Current Steps (cont) Now

  • Print Letters (multiple machines, multiple shifts) – Typically 2 to 4 days

  • Stuff Letters – Typically 2 days

  • Send eMails when Letters are dropped at USPS – Typically 4 hours to send eMails through Gateway

  • Create HTML for Draw Results on Web Site – Typically 4 hours

  • Print Refund Checks / Reconcile – Typically 1 day

Tag Allocation and Application Topics – Earlier Results

45


Tag allocation and application topics committee position47 l.jpg

A.9.11 Earlier Draw Results Now

Committee Final Position:

“Leave as is” - make no change to current process.

Tag Allocation and Application Topics – Committee Position

46


Slide48 l.jpg

A.9.12 Draw NR Tags, then Allocate Remaining Now

Tags to Res Quotas

Tag Allocation and Application Topics – Draw NR tags first then allocate remaining tags to other quotas

47


Slide49 l.jpg

Remaining Tags Now

  • In 2006 and 2007 remaining tags were available to both residents and nonresidents if there was a corresponding nonresident hunt

  • This eligibility rule was established in the seasons and bag eligibility and deadline information

  • 2007 there were 1136 tags remaining for the second draw

  • NR quota remaining that became available to both Res. and NR:

  • Longbow Antelope - 4 Tags

  • Longbow Deer- 7 tags

  • Res. quota remaining that became available to both Res and NR:

  • Longbow Deer – 408 Tags

  • Resident Antlerless Archery Elk – stayed Resident – 2 tags

  • Resident Junior Tags – stayed Resident – 454 tags

  • Resident Antlerless Deer – stayed Resident – 233- tags

  • Resident Depredation Deer – stayed Resident – 28 tags

Tag Allocation and Application Topics – Draw NR tags first then allocate remaining tags to other quotas

48


Slide50 l.jpg

In 2007, there were 1,136 tags remaining after the first draw.

806 were issued in the second draw in the following manner:

Tag Allocation and Application Topics – Draw NR tags first then allocate remaining tags to other quotas

49


Tag allocation and application topics committee position51 l.jpg

A.9.12 Draw NR Tags, then Allocate Remaining draw.

Tags to Res Quotas

Committee Final Position:

“Leave as is” - make no change to current process.

Tag Allocation and Application Topics – Committee Position

50


Tag allocation and application topics remaining cow elk tags for youth l.jpg

A.9.12.1 Remaining Cow Elk Tags Placed in a draw.

Youth Draw

  • Administrative Issues

  • Commission would have to establish a youth hunt for cow elk

  • Commission would have to establish eligibility issues in season and bags information

  • Would they only be available in a remaining tag situation? Or would cow elk youth tags be available for the main draw also and these would be added to any remaining from that draw?

Tag Allocation and Application Topics – Remaining Cow Elk Tags for Youth

51


Slide53 l.jpg
Tag Allocation and Application Topics – Remaining Cow Elk Non Resident Tags placed in Resident Quota – 2005 Main Draw

52


Slide54 l.jpg
Tag Allocation and Application Topics – Remaining Cow Elk Non Resident Tags placed in Resident QuotaNon Resident Tags placed in Resident Quota – 2006 Main Draw

53


Slide55 l.jpg

2007 Main Draw Remaining Cow Elk Tags Non Resident Tags placed in Resident Quota

  • Non Resident Cow Elk Hunt NOT offered in 2007

  • All Tags subscribed in Main Draw by Resident Hunters

Tag Allocation and Application Topics – Remaining Cow Elk Non Resident Tags placed in Resident Quota – 2007 Main Draw

54


Tag allocation and application topics committee position56 l.jpg

A.9.12.1 Remaining Cow Elk Tags Placed in a Non Resident Tags placed in Resident Quota

Youth Draw

Committee Final Position:

“Leave as is” - make no change to current process.

Tag Allocation and Application Topics – Committee Position

55


Slide57 l.jpg

A.9.12.2 Non Resident Tags placed in Resident QuotaRemaining NR Cow Elk tags placed in res quotas

and

A.9.12.3 Non Resident and Resident tags

placed in general pool

In light of there being no Cow Elk hunt offered in 2007, and that these two issues are very much related to A.9.12 and A.9.12.1 above, these issues are recognized as being previously addressed. Take No Action

56


Tag allocation and application topics special draw for military l.jpg

A.9.18 Special Draw For Military Non Resident Tags placed in Resident Quota

  • Administrative Issues

  • Would they have their own quota or are their tags deducted from the already limited number of tags?

  • Who would be eligible, definition of various military statuses, limitation (i.e., Active Duty, Reserve, National Guard; mobilized or inactive?)

  • Military status is not a permanent status—yearly proof to qualify

  • What would be acceptable proof? ID card(s), activation orders, etc

  • Apply on paper only? What species?

  • ‘05 statistics used in the ‘07 Legislature on a BDR for military license

  • - NV Residents on active duty in the Armed Forces - 14,323

  • - Approximate # NV National Guard Under 10 U.S.C. – 300

Tag Allocation and Application Topics – Special Draw for Military

57


Tag allocation and application topics committee position59 l.jpg

A.9.18 Special Draw For Military Non Resident Tags placed in Resident Quota

Committee Final Position:

“Leave as is” - make no change to current process.

Tag Allocation and Application Topics – Committee Position

58


Slide60 l.jpg

Thank You! Non Resident Tags placed in Resident Quota

59