phase 2 eligibility jim jeffress chairman l.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Phase 2 Eligibility Jim Jeffress, Chairman PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Phase 2 Eligibility Jim Jeffress, Chairman

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 62

Phase 2 Eligibility Jim Jeffress, Chairman - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 250 Views
  • Uploaded on

Phase 2 Eligibility Jim Jeffress, Chairman. Presented at Reno TAAHC Meeting, 2 Nov 07. Authority The Chairman of the Nevada Board of Wildlife Commissioners established the TAAHC on August 5, 2006 Purpose The Committee will review:

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 Eligibility Jim Jeffress, Chairman' - arleen


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 eligibility jim jeffress chairman

Phase 2EligibilityJim Jeffress, Chairman

Presented at Reno TAAHC Meeting, 2 Nov 07

taahc authority and purpose

Authority

  • The Chairman of the Nevada Board of Wildlife

Commissioners established the TAAHC on August 5, 2006

Purpose

  • The Committee will review:

- issues of tag allocation based on sound biological principles

- evaluate potential changes to the application hunt and draw

processes

- make recommendations to the Board of Wildlife Commissioners

regarding their research and findings

(TAAHC)Authority and Purpose

1

objectives

Objectives for Tag Allocation Issues

  • Using sound biological principles, balance the sportsmen’s desire for

hunting opportunity and the available wildlife resource with sound

biological management decisions

  • To ensure sportsmen have input and consideration into quality vs.

quantity opportunities in the allocation of tags

  • To review and recommend revisions or updates to any applicable

policies or procedures for the allocation of tags

  • To ensure an educational campaign to educate sportsmen for any

changes to the allocation methods or formulas

Objectives

2

objectives4

Objectives for Application and Draw Issues

  • Consider sportsman desires regarding application processes (how they apply

for hunts)

  • Consider sportsman desires regarding the bonus point program
  • Consider sportsman desires regarding the order of the draw
  • Consider cost benefit analysis for proposed changes to existing program
  • Ensure proposed changes are considered in the budgeting process
  • Ensure adequate time for programming changes
  • Initiate regulatory review and revision for any proposed changes to the

application or draw processes

  • Ensure an educational campaign to educate sportsmen for any changes to

the application and draw processes

Objectives

3

purpose of this presentation

Purpose

  • This series of presentations address tag allocation and application hunt topics

addressed to the TAAHC from County Wildlife Advisory Boards (CABs) & sportsmen

  • This specific presentation, representing Phase 2 of the TAAHC’s efforts, addresses

the topic of Eligibility. Other topics will be addressed in the future using this format

  • To assure widest public dissemination, this presentation, and the previous Phase 1

Presentation, are posted on the NDOW website at www.ndow.org. You can find the

committee page and this presentation on the web site’s home page by clicking on the

link “TAAHC Committee/NBWC Committees,” or you can go directly to the committee

page at http://www.ndow.org/learn/com/committee/index.shtm

  • The TAAHC has developed final “action” recommendations for Phase 2 issues regarding eligibility. Those recommendations, addressed at the November 2, 2007 TAAHC, are included in this presentation. At this November 2nd meeting item A6.1.3 "Return of Tags - For Any Reason" was discussed as an informational item to solicit public impute--no action.  The TAAHC will hold another meeting on December 17, 2007to finalize their recommendations for item A6.1.3.  The TAAHC will present to the February 2008 meeting of the Nevada Board of Wildlife Commissionersall the Phase 2 eligibility and "Return of Tags - For Any Reason" recommendations for final action.
  • To learn more about the committee’s efforts and to have your voice heard, you are

encouraged to attend a TAAHC meeting (see schedule of meetings at the committee

page of the NDOW website). If you are unable to attend a meeting, you are encourage

to attend your local CAB meeting. To find a CAB meeting date and location nearest

you, go to http://www.ndow.org/learn/cab/

Purpose of this Presentation

5

tag allocation and application topics agenda

Agenda – Eligibility Topics

  • A.6.1 Tag Return – Leave as Is
    • A.6.1.1 Tag Return – If more than one drawn in a year
    • A.6.1.2 Tag Return – for a “Hunt of a Lifetime”
    • A.6.1.3 Tag Return – for any reason
    • A.6.1.4 Tag Return – for any reason prior to printing
    • A.6.1.5 Tag Return – for death allow transfer
  • A.6.2 Waiting Period – Leave as Is
    • A.6.2.1 Waiting Period – Sit out following year for Deer
    • A.6.2.2 Waiting Period – Examine Big Game Waiting Periods
Tag Allocation and Application Topics – Agenda

6

tag allocation and application topics agenda8

Agenda – Eligibility Topics (cont.)

    • A.6.2.3 Waiting Period – Allow applying for bonus point during ineligible years
    • A.6.2.4 Waiting Period – For Premium tag only, allow applying for bonus point during ineligible years
  • A.6.3 Number of Tags Per Year – Leave as Is
    • A.6.3.1 Tags Per Year – Limit to one Big Game
    • A.6.3.2 Tags Per Year – Limit to one Big Game and one Mule Deer
    • A.6.3.3 Tags Per Year – Limit to one Big Game with individual sportsman defined priority
  • A.6.4 Harvest Report – Return to single deadline
Tag Allocation and Application Topics – Agenda

7

tag allocation and application topics agenda9

Agenda – Eligibility Topics (cont.)

  • A.6.5 Landowner Program – Limit Tags
  • A.6.6 Remaining Tags – No Crossover between Resident and Non-Resident
    • A.6.6.1 Remaining Tags – Give Remaining NR Tags to Residents next in line
  • A.6.7 Limit Big Game Apps – One Per Year
  • A.6.8 NR Guided Applicants – Ineligible for Big Game Draw
Tag Allocation and Application Topics – Agenda

8

tag allocation and application topics agenda10

Agenda – Eligibility Topics (cont.)

  • A.6.9 NR Elk Applicants – Same Eligibility as Residents
  • A.6.10 Deer Applicants – Concurrent Buck and Doe

Applications

  • A.6.11 Transfer Big Horn Tags – Various conditions
Tag Allocation and Application Topics – Agenda

9

tag allocation application topics tag return background12

How many people draw multiple tags –

Considering All Tags?

Tag Allocation & Application Topics – Tag Return - Background

* All tags including PIW, Antlered, Antlerless

11

tag allocation application topics tag return background13

How many people draw multiple tags –

Not Considering PIW Tags?

Tag Allocation & Application Topics – Tag Return - Background

* All Tags excluding PIW

12

tag allocation application topics tag return background14

How many people draw multiple tags – Considering only Antlered Deer, Elk, Sheep and Goat Tags?

Tag Allocation & Application Topics – Tag Return - Background

* All Tags excluding Antlerless Tags (deer, elk, horns shorter

than ears and depredation)

13

tag allocation application topics tag return background15

How many people draw multiple tags – Considering only Antlered Elk, Sheep and Goat Tags?

Tag Allocation & Application Topics – Tag Return - Background

* All Tags excluding Deer Tags, horns shorter than ears and depredation

14

slide16

Limit the Number of Big Game Tags/Hunter

Percent of Hunters Drawing More Than One Tag

15

slide17

Tag Allocation and Application Topics – Multiple Tags vs. Single Tags – Performance in the Field

Are Sportsmen drawing multiple tags as likely to hunt, harvest and spend as much time in the field as single tag recipients?

16

tag allocation and application topics tag return policy

Pronghorn Antelope Bonus Point

Applicants/Tags by Year 

Tag Allocation and Application Topics – Tag Return Policy

Points

Applicants

Unsuccessful

Tags

% – Percentage to Points

17

tag allocation and application topics tag return policy19

Current Tag Return Policy:

  • Authorized under NAC 502.422
  • Eligibility:
    • Death (including family members)
    • Military Orders
    • Medical (including family members)
  • Deadline to return the tag is prior to the opening day of the season
  • Full Refund of Tag Fees (but not application, predator control, internet or depredation fees)
  • Bonus Points and eligibility are re-instated or Military can optionally defer hunt up to two years
Tag Allocation and Application Topics – Tag Return Policy

18

tag allocation and application topics tag return ramifications

Tag Return Ramifications:

  • Current Tag Return Protocols require 2 days and 4 contacts per Alternate and are manually intensive
  • Tag Return Protocols require some time before a season starts to complete
  • Publishing or pre-notifying Alternates might create an “E-Bay” like situation where opportunities are bought and sold.
  • Should all hunts (including deer) be considered or only Trophy?
  • Should there be a re-stocking fee for returning the tags?
Tag Allocation and Application Topics – Tag Return Ramifications

19

tag allocation and application topics return of tag for a hunt of a lifetime

Return Tag for a “Hunt of a Lifetime”:

  • Arizona currently has a “Hunt of a Lifetime” program.
  • Sportsman can return any tag for any reason and dedicate it specifically to a “Hunt of a Lifetime”
  • “Hunt of a Lifetime” tags is for terminally ill sportsmen under 21 years of age.
  • The eligibility is determined by three organizations nationwide.
  • Arizona yields to these three organizations to determine eligibility.
  • In 2006, Arizona had 93 tags turned in and 6 were allocated.
  • Should Nevada establish a similar “Hunt of a Lifetime” program?
Tag Allocation and Application Topics – Return of Tag for a “Hunt of a Lifetime”

20

tag allocation and application topics tag return ramifications22

A.6.1.1 Tag Return – If more than one drawn in a year

Committee Preliminary Position: The committee motioned to allow a tag return for any reason for up to two weeks following notification of draw results. Caveat: The committee’s final position will be dependant on Systems Consultant’s further reporting on the feasibility of these procedural and technical changes, as well as the fiscal impact.

Final motions to be addressed at the December 17th meeting.

Fiscal Impact: To Be Determined.

Tag Allocation and Application Topics – Tag Return Ramifications ``````

21

tag allocation and application topics tag return ramifications23

A.6.1.2 Tag Return – For a “Hunt of a Lifetime”

Committee Preliminary Position: The committee motioned to reject this topic.

Final motions to be addressed at the December 17th meeting.

Tag Allocation and Application Topics – Tag Return Ramifications

A.6.1.3 Tag Return – For any reason

Committee Preliminary Position: In the motion for A.6.1.1, the committee motioned to allow a tag return for “any reason” for up to two weeks following notification of draw results. Caveat: The committee’s final position will be dependant Systems Consultant’s further reporting on the feasibility of these procedural and technical changes, as well as the fiscal impact.

Final motions to be addressed at the December 17th meeting. (See updated informational paper on this topic posted at the TAAHC page of the NDOW website)

22

tag allocation and application topics tag return ramifications24

A.6.1.4 Tag Return – For any reason prior to printing

Committee Preliminary Position: Assigned a “priority 3” and cancelled because tag printing begins immediately.

Tag Allocation and Application Topics – Tag Return Ramifications

A.6.1.5 Tag Return – Death of Tagholder to transfer to another eligible sportsman

Committee Preliminary Position: Assigned a “priority 3” and cancelled because capability exists now to return in the event of death.

23

tag allocation and application topics waiting periods26

Vagaries of the Current Waiting Periods:

  • You can apply for bonus points after drawing an Antelope Any Legal Weapon (2151) tag because of the Antelope Archery (2161) eligibility
  • Sportsmen are rewarded for false harvest reports for several species. That is, reporting a “no harvest” triggers a shorter waiting period
  • Goats have five times the quota of Rocky Mountain Bighorn and yet Goats are once-in-a-lifetime and Rocky Mountain Bighorn are 10 years (harvest) and 5 years (no harvest wait). Similarly, there are approximately the same quotas for California Bighorn as Goat and yet the California waiting periods are also 10 years and 5 years
Tag Allocation and Application Topics – Waiting Periods

25

slide27

Tag Allocation and Application Topics – Waiting Periods

Clients who used the “hole” in Antelope Eligibility to apply for bonus points after obtaining an Any Legal Weapon Antelope (2151) tag.

26

tag allocation and application topics waiting periods28

Deer Waiting Period -- Background

There has been discussion of making a 1 year waiting period for Deer. I.e., if you drew a deer tag in 2005 (regardless of harvest), you would be ineligible in 2006, but could apply again in 2007.

The premise behind the waiting period is the concept that if 43,146 sportsmen (Residents and Non Residents) are chasing 13,828 tags, then there must be roughly 3:1 (3.12) odds of drawing. Following this reasoning, if 13,828 sportsmen were ineligible the following year, then there might be only 29,318 people would chase the 13,828 tags the next year with roughly 2:1 (2.12) odds of drawing instead.

Tag Allocation and Application Topics – Waiting Periods

27

tag allocation and application topics waiting periods29

Deer Waiting Period – Background (cont.)

SCI performed a “simulated drawing”, re-drawing deer tags using actual 2006 applications and eliminating those individuals who drew a Buck deer tag in 2005.

There were 13,340 clients who drew deer tags in 2005 (hunt # 1331, 1341 or 1371). These individuals were made “ineligible” in the simulated re-drawing. Of the 13,340 clients only 3,028 had actually drawn in 2006 and thus the actual increase in distribution of tags to other sportsmen was only 3,028 and not 13,340 as might have been surmised.

Tag Allocation and Application Topics – Waiting Periods

28

tag allocation and application topics waiting periods30

Simulated Drawing Results:

  • Of the 13,340 sportsmen who drew deer tags in 2005, only 3,028 sportsmen drew again in 2006. Those sportsmen would not have drawn, and some, but NOT ALL of those tags went to 1,951 individuals who didn’t originally draw in 2006.
  • 1,627 Archery Tags were left over in the simulated drawing vice 568 in the actual draw
  • 14 Muzzleloader Tags were left over in the simulated drawing vice 0 (zero) in the actual draw
  • 0 (zero) Any Legal Weapon Tags were left over in the simulated drawing vice 0 (zero) in the actual draw
Tag Allocation and Application Topics – Waiting Periods

29

tag allocation and application topics waiting periods31

Why didn’t the odds improve to the extent expected?

  • The nominal 3:1 odds are an overall number and don’t take into consideration much better odds with Archery and Muzzleloader. As such, by making hunters who obtained a tag one year ineligible the next year, additional Archery and Muzzleloader tags were left over after the draw, i.e., the full opportunity to reduce the 3:1 odds wasn’t realized.
  • The are many new applicants who take part in the draw each year and some of those who have drawn in the previous year don’t apply again. Of the 13,340 sportsmen who drew deer tag in 2005, only 10,087 applied again for deer in 2006, so they have less impact on the odds than assumed.
Tag Allocation and Application Topics – Waiting Periods

30

tag allocation and application topics waiting periods34

Deer Waiting Period – Fiscal Impact

  • If the 13,675 individuals who drew a tag in 2005 were ineligible to apply for deer in 2006, there is a potential loss of license revenue if they couldn’t apply the next year
  • Of the 13,675 individuals who drew a 1235, 1331, 1341 or 1371 tag in 2005, 3,260 of those applied ONLY for Deer
  • The worst case fiscal impact could entail as much as $167,104 (2,684 X $32 for a hunting license and 576 X $141 for a non-resident license) if NONE of those affected purchased a hunting license
  • However, an undetermined number of those sportsmen may still purchase a license for bird hunting, etc.
Tag Allocation and Application Topics – Waiting Periods

33

tag allocation and application topics waiting periods35

Deer Waiting Period – Fiscal Impact Mitigations

  • Other deer hunting opportunities (i.e., Doe Tags) could be offered
  • Sportsmen ineligible for the main draw could be eligible for remaining tags
  • Sportsmen ineligible to draw a deer tag could be allowed to apply for a bonus point for a deer tag
Tag Allocation and Application Topics – Waiting Periods

34

tag allocation and application topics elk waiting periods

Number of individuals who have drawn one or more tags

under the 5/10* Year Waiting Period for Elk:

Tag Allocation and Application Topics – Elk Waiting Periods

* Elk eligibility was 5 yrs if no harvest and once in a lifetime if harvested

until 1990

** All Bull Elk Tags from 1983 to 2006

35

tag allocation and application topics dbh waiting periods

Number of individuals who have drawn one or more tags under the 5/10 Year Waiting Period for Desert Bighorn:

Tag Allocation and Application Topics – DBH Waiting Periods

* All Desert Bighorn Tags from 1983 to 2006

36

tag allocation and application topics cbh waiting periods

Number individuals who drew one or more tags under the 5/10 Year Waiting Period for California Bighorn:

Tag Allocation and Application Topics – CBH Waiting Periods

* All California Bighorn Tags from 1984 to 2006

37

tag allocation and application topics rmbh waiting periods

Number of individuals who draw one or more tags under the 5/10 Year Waiting Period for Rocky Mountain Bighorn:

Tag Allocation and Application Topics – RMBH Waiting Periods

* All Rocky Mountain Bighorn Tags from 1985 to 2006

38

tag allocation and application topics tag return ramifications40

A.6.2.1 One Year Wait Period if you Draw a Deer Tag

Committee Final Position: Committee motioned to not change the waiting period for deer. Leave as is.

Tag Allocation and Application Topics – Tag Return Ramifications

39

slide41

A.6.2.2 Examine Big Game Waiting Periods After Drawing a Tag

Committee Final Position: the committee motioned for:

40

slide42

There has been some discussion of allowing individuals who are in a waiting period to apply for bonus points.

Consequences of allowing individuals to apply for bonus points during their Desert Bighorn Waiting Period:

Tag Allocation and Application Topics – Applying for Bonus Points During Desert Bighorn Waiting Periods

* The ability to apply for bonus points was initiated in 2005

** Additional Residents who could have earned bonus points

41

slide43

Consequences of allowing individuals to apply for bonus points during their California Bighorn Waiting Period:

Tag Allocation and Application Topics – Applying for Bonus Points During California Bighorn Waiting Periods

* The ability to apply for bonus points was initiated in 2005

** Additional Residents who could have earned bonus points

42

slide44

Consequences of allowing individuals to apply for bonus points during their Rocky Mountain Bighorn Waiting Period:

Tag Allocation and Application Topics – Applying for Bonus Points During Rocky Mountain Bighorn Waiting Periods

* The ability to apply for bonus points was initiated in 2005

** Additional Residents who could have earned bonus points

43

tag allocation and application topics applying for bonus points during elk waiting periods

Consequences of allowing individuals to apply for bonus points during their Bull Elk Waiting Period:

Tag Allocation and Application Topics – Applying for Bonus Points During Elk Waiting Periods

* The ability to apply for bonus points was initiated in 2005

** Additional Residents who could have earned bonus points

44

tag allocation and application topics waiting periods46

A.6.2.3 After Obtaining a Tag allow for applying for bonus points

Committee Final Position: Committee motioned to not allow a hunter to accrue bonus points during a waiting period.

Tag Allocation and Application Topics – Waiting Periods

A.6.2.4 After obtaining a Premium Tag allow applications for bonus points in the waiting period

Committee Final Position: In A.6.2.3 above, Committee motioned to not allow a hunter to accrue bonus points during a waiting period. Consequently, A.6.2.4 was rejected

45

tag allocation and application topics single tag species concurrent tags draw order issues

Approximately 10% of the tags currently drawn are drawn by hunters who have drawn two or more tags. There has been some interest in limiting the number of tags that can be drawn by one individual in one year. This could be implemented in a couple of fashions:

Tag Allocation and Application Topics – Single Tag Species Concurrent Tags – Draw Order Issues
  • Restrict the number of concurrent tags (Utah does this)
  • Restrict the number of concurrent applications (Utah does this)

46

tag allocation and application topics single tag species concurrent tags draw order issues48

The number of concurrent tags can be restricted (i.e., if you draw a bighorn sheep tag, you can’t also draw another tag in the same draw) in a couple of fashions:

Tag Allocation and Application Topics – Single Tag Species Concurrent Tags – Draw Order Issues
  • The Commission could set the draw order (this is done in Utah). I.e., hard to draw species like Rocky Mountain Goat or Elk could be drawn before species less difficult to draw. Note that in Utah, they opted to do the exact opposite when setting their draw order. Drawing a Limited Entry Deer tag prevents drawing any Once-In-a-Lifetime in Utah
  • The sportsmen could specify their own draw sequence. I.e., one sportsman could specify Rocky Mountain Goat is their number one preference and deer is their last choice, while another might opt for Elk first

47

tag allocation and application topics single tag species concurrent tags draw order issues49

If the sportsmen can set their own individual drawing sequences there are some consequences:

  • How does the sportsman specify his or her choices?
  • Because sportsmen can apply on separate applications, they might change their mind mid draw. What happens if two apps are submitted by a sportsman (i.e., Antelope and Elk) at separate times with “Draw Me First?” How is the choice made between two, given the same precedence?
  • Is there any opportunity to change choices, particularly if later apps are submitted? I.e., if you had first submitted a single app for deer with it as “Draw Me First,” is it possible to submit a subsequent app that takes precedence?
Tag Allocation and Application Topics – Single Tag Species Concurrent Tags – Draw Order Issues

48

tag allocation and application topics number of tags

A.6.3.1 Number of Tags – Only One Big Game Tag Per Year

Tag Allocation and Application Topics – Number of Tags

Committee Final Position: committee motioned to leave number of tags as is (A6.3); therefore, A.6.3.1 was rejected by committee

49

tag allocation and application topics number of tags51

A.6.3.2 Limit the Number of Big Game Tags in a Lifetime

Committee Final Position:committee motioned to leave number of tags as is (A.6.3); therefore, A6.3.2 was rejected by committee

Tag Allocation and Application Topics – Number of Tags

A.6.3.3 Number of Tags – Limit One Big Game Tag and One Deer Tag Per Year

Committee Final Position:committee motioned to leave number of tags as is (A.6.3); therefore, A6.3.3 was rejected by committee

50

tag allocation and application topics number of tags52

A.6.3.4 Limit the Number of Big Game Tags – with the Sportsmen ranking their own preferences high to low

Tag Allocation and Application Topics – Number of Tags

Committee Final Position: committee previously motioned to leave number of tags as is (A.6.3); therefore, A6.3.4 was rejected by committee

51

slide53

Tag Allocation and Application Topics – Harvest Report Deadlines

1Courtesy Letters were sent about 3 weeks after season ending until 2003 when they were sent during the season.

2Final Courtesy notices were sent about January 15, until the 2003 hunt year.

3Error Correction Letters are sent when a report is filed timely, but incorrectly.

4Final Reject Courtesy Notices were sent beginning with the 2006 hunt year to individuals who filed, but filed late

5Late Filing Penalty Letters are sent to sportsmen with late filed reports

6Rejected Filing Penalty Letters are sent to uncorrected rejected reports

7Non Filing Penalty Letters are sent to sportsmen who did not file reports

8If clients paid fines on the same hunt in multiple years that fact would be missing from the fine paid numbers. Only the most recent year the fine was paid for a hunt is recorded. 2006 numbers are the only ones we can say are complete. If a client paid a late fine in 2003 on a 1331 tag and then paid another late fine on a 1331 in 2006, the late payment in 2003 would not be included in the above counts.

52

tag allocation and application topics harvest report deadlines

A.6.4 Longer Deadline for Harvest Reports

Committee Final Position: Given a “priority 3” as rejected because it was already addressed as a new Commission Regulation (CR) at the Ely Commission meeting on August 10th, and the CR was approved by the commission at the November meeting in Reno.

Tag Allocation and Application Topics – Harvest Report Deadlines

53

tag allocation and application topics landowner program

A.6.5 Landowner Program – Establish a limit on the number of tags a sportsman can obtain in one year

Tag Allocation and Application Topics – Landowner Program

Committee Final Position: Given a “priority 3” as rejected.

54

tag allocation and application topics remaining tags

A.6.6 Remaining Tags – No crossover between Resident and Non-Resident Quotas.

Committee Final Position: committee previously motioned to move A6.6 to priority 3—no further consideration by the committee.

Tag Allocation and Application Topics – Remaining Tags

A.6.6.1 Remaining Tags – Give Remaining NR Tags to Residents next in line

Committee Final Position: committee previously motioned to move A6.6.1 to priority 3—no further consideration by the committee.

55

tag allocation and application topics limit big game apps

A.6.7 Limit Big Game Apps – One Per Year

Committee Final Position: committee previously motioned to move A6.7 to priority 3—no further consideration by the committee.

Tag Allocation and Application Topics – Limit Big Game Apps

56

tag allocation and application topics nr guided draw

A.6.8 NR Guided Applicants – Ineligible for Big Game Draw

Committee Final Position: Previously given a “priority 3” as rejected because this has already been implemented by the Commission.

Tag Allocation and Application Topics – NR Guided Draw

57

tag allocation and application topics nr elk applicants

A.6.9 NR Elk Applicants – Same Eligibility as Residents

Committee FinalPosition: Previously given a “priority 3” as rejected. Non residents currently have the same eligibility as Residents.

Tag Allocation and Application Topics – NR Elk Applicants

58

tag allocation and application topics concurrent buck doe choices on deer applications

A.6.10 Deer Applicants – Concurrent Buck and Doe Hunter Choices on a Deer Application

Tag Allocation and Application Topics – Concurrent Buck/Doe Choices on Deer Applications

Committee FinalPosition: Previously given a “priority 3” as rejected.

59

tag allocation and application topics transfer bighorn tags

A.6.11 Transfer Bighorn Tags – Under Various Conditions

Tag Allocation and Application Topics – Transfer Bighorn Tags

Committee Final Position: Previously given a “priority 3” as rejected.

60