Exactly who are you trying to "sell" here? If it is harder to obtain a license or more expensive to obtain a license then I will go elsewhere. Wyoming is NOT the MUST hunt state. I will take my hunting dollars elsewhere.

I have hunted almost every year in Wyoming since 1994 so I'm very familiar with the system. I have several important comments to make about this whole deal so please bear with me.
1---The Wilderness Act that keeps NRs from hunting big and trophy game without a guide or resident with an approved licensed to take a max of two people is strictly a subsidy for the outfitters. You can go in any of those areas at ANY time by yourself to do ANYTHING else without a guide, so safety is not their consideration. It is strictly to help the outfitters who had/have enough Legislators in their pocket to have voted it through and keep it in effect.

2---The proposed fees are not just for NRs. The fees are also being raised quite a bit for residents as well, but not as high as they should be IMHO and even many residents feels that way.

3---A close friend has been in correspondence with the Deputy Director mentioned by the OP because the OP initially completely misrepresented the draw to people on this and other Forums when he stated that a person with PPs does not go to the random draw for another chance at his first choice if he does not draw in the PP drawing. That is completely false, was verified in wriing in an email from the deputy Director that I personally read myself, and is one of the reasons people like the system because if you buy PPs and don't get your first choice in that draw you have a second chance because you have paid more money than the person with no PPs in the random draw. This proposal would not allow that any longer and also assumes a lot of people will pay money to enter a second and/or third choice when now you can do that for free. The OP fails to say that he is also an outfitter and this will help that industry because they will be able to have a better chance for people without PPs to draw a tag and go with them on an outfitted hunt, especially those repeat customers who have drawn his unit and lost their PPs and want to hunt again soon before they have enough PPs to be drawn again. This proposal goes against everything the current system was built on and that's to allow the PP holders a better chance and still allow a person that has none to draw a tag. Both the Deputy Director and the lady in charge of the draw have told my close friend that this proposal is dead in the water because the assumptions used for the money it might gain are not accurate and that it would allienate too many people that are PP holders vested in the present system that the OP would screw with this proposal. Most people do not want to see huge increases in fees, but that is better when it is spread across the board to everyone applying for a license and leaves the draw system as it is.

4---The G&F in Wyoming only gets 6% of it's money from the State General Fund and most of that is designated programs, many of which don't even involve hunting (grizzly studies as an example). Their budget will be between 8 and 10 million dollars short by 2015 if greatly increased funding is not found. This proposal will not even make a dent in that even if the assumptions the OP makes are correct and they are not in most people's opinion that have looked into the proposal in depth, including the G&F personnel themselves! I have seen the correspondence by email from G&F to my friend and what I'm stating is FACT!

5---The statement the OP made in an earlier post regarding me and my username is completely FALSE in every aspect!

6---In conclusion, tinkering with the draw process after it's inception like the OP is proposing goes against everyone who currently has PPs in the system and are relying that it stays the same until they are no longer in the PP race! Fair is fair and this proposal is not in the best interest of all those currently with PPs in the system.

Upon further reflection, I have to agree with Critter. I originally believed the guide / outfitter requirement was merely to benefit the licensed guides and state, but now see where it might be a good idea. Hunters often stray far from paths and trails. Successful hunters must also pack out their harvested game. The requirement of a guide / outfitter seems to be a good way to ensure big game hunters in the wilderness areas have the ability and resources to do so. If this requirement helps ensure game is not wasted, I'm in favor of it. I don't bother to hunt elk in Wyoming due to the states requirements. The guide / outfitter requirement makes it too cost prohibitive for our group, to say nothing of the restrictiveness. We like to do our own hunts and not be "guided" by others and their schedules etc... I've hunted the Ten Sleep area for the past 4 years and plan on doing so for many years to come. Wyoming deer/antelope hunting is hard to beat, regardless of tag costs, but I sure hope they stay reasonable, or I'll consider staying in California and paying to hunt private ranches. When the total costs start to get to around $700-$800 per week (food, gas, hotels, tags etc,,), private ranches near home start to make more sense.

Sorry, but the requirement to use an outfitter only if you are hunting is strictly a friggin subsidy for them and nothing else or they wouldn't allow a NR to go without one for everything else like they do. Saftey and what you described is not the reason. It's flat out money based and that's a fact! PS: You don't happen to have a white vehicle and road hunt out there all day every day by chance do you? There was such a vehicle with a CA plate out in the area you mentioned where I also hunt and it went by up and down the road real slow so many times in a week that it was ridiculous!!! Whoever it was sure wasn't a hunter in any sense of the word!