1 / 60

Phase 2 Wrap-Up Jim Jeffress, Chairman

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

Jeffrey
Download Presentation

Phase 2 Wrap-Up Jim Jeffress, Chairman

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. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Phase 2Wrap-UpJim Jeffress, Chairman Final – March 21, 2008 TAAHC meeting Winnemucca, Nevada

  2. 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

  3. Agenda -Remaining Application Hunt Topics 2

  4. A.2.1 Raise Application Fees • 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

  5. What’s entailed in the application fees? Tag Allocation and Application Topics – Application Fees 4

  6. Applications in Fiscal Year 2007: July 1, 2006 – June 30, 2007 Tag Allocation and Application Topics – Application Fees 5

  7. Contract Costs 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

  8. A.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

  9. A.2.2 Raise PIW and Bonus Point Fee • PIW Applications: • Prior to 2001 Fees were: • Deer $20 Tag Fee • Big Game ½ Tag Fee • Changed in 2001: • $10 for all species Tag Allocation and Application Topics – PIW & BP Fees 8

  10. Tag Allocation and Application Topics – PIW Fees By Year 9

  11. Tag Allocation and Application Topics – Bonus Point Only Applications By Year By Species/Characteristic 10

  12. NAC changes required if Bonus Point fees are increased • Partnership in Wildlife Fee – It is a Nevada Administrative Code change to NAC 502.427 • Bonus Points Fee - It is a Nevada Administrative Code change to NAC 502.331. Tag Allocation and Application Topics – PIW & BP Fees 11

  13. A.2.2 Raise PIW and Bonus Point Fee Committee Final Position: “Leave as is” - make no change to current process. Tag Allocation and Application Topics – Committee Position 12

  14. A.3.4 Transfer of Tags to Youth Background –Youth Applications Since 1998 Tag Allocation and Application Topics – Transfer Tag to Youth 13

  15. Why did 500+ youth not draw youth tags in the main draw? • 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

  16. Issues regarding transfer of tags • 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

  17. A.3.4 Transfer of Tags to Youth Committee Final Position: “Leave as is” - make no change to current process. Tag Allocation and Application Topics – Committee Position 16

  18. A.3.6 Allow Youth to Fill a General Tag Holder’s Tag • 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

  19. A.3.6 Allow Youth to Fill a General Tag Holder’s Tag Committee Final Position: “Leave as is” - make no change to current process. Tag Allocation and Application Topics – Committee Position 18

  20. A.3.7 Youth and Adult Draw Same Tag 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

  21. A.3.7 Youth and Adult Draw Same Tag Committee Final Position: “Leave as is” - make no change to current process. Tag Allocation and Application Topics – Committee Position 20

  22. A.4.1 Youth / Adult Mixed Party 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

  23. Issues • 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

  24. Youth and Adult Hunt – Programming • 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

  25. A.4.1 Youth / Adult Mixed Party Committee Final Position: “Leave as is” - make no change to current process. Tag Allocation and Application Topics – Committee Position 24

  26. A.4.1.1 Party Applications for Antelope 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

  27. Party Elk and Antelope Apps in Utah 2007 Tag Allocation and Application Topics – Party Cow Elk and Antelope Applications 26

  28. Party Cow Elk And Antelope Apps in Nevada • Modifications to Web Applications Process – Estimated to be $3,000 Tag Allocation and Application Topics – Party Cow Elk and Antelope Applications – Cost Estimate 27

  29. A.4.1.1 Party Applications for Antelope and Cow Elk Committee Final Position: “Leave as is” - make no change to current process. Tag Allocation and Application Topics – Committee Position 28

  30. A.9.2 Hold the PIW Draw First • 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

  31. Impact of Drawing PIW Before Other Tags Tag Allocation and Application Topics – Hold PIW Draw First 30

  32. A.9.2 Hold the PIW Draw First Committee Final Position: “Leave as is” - make no change to current process. Tag Allocation and Application Topics – Committee Position 31

  33. A.9.3 Order of the Draw – Run All 1st 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

  34. 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

  35. Administrative Issues • 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

  36. A.9.3 Order of the Draw – Run All 1st 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

  37. 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

  38. 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

  39. A.9.4.1 Expand Goat Choices Beyond One • 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

  40. A.9.4.1 Expand Mt. Goat Choices Beyond One 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

  41. A.9.6 Mt. Lion Tag with Other Tag in Draw • 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

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

  43. A.9.11 Earlier Draw Results 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

  44. Earlier Draw Results – Current Steps • 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

  45. Earlier Draw Results – Current Steps (cont) • 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

  46. Earlier Draw Results – Current Steps (cont) • 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

  47. A.9.11 Earlier Draw Results Committee Final Position: “Leave as is” - make no change to current process. Tag Allocation and Application Topics – Committee Position 46

  48. A.9.12 Draw NR Tags, then Allocate Remaining Tags to Res Quotas Tag Allocation and Application Topics – Draw NR tags first then allocate remaining tags to other quotas 47

  49. Remaining Tags • 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

  50. 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

More Related