Sponsor: Rep. Clarene Law (R-H23, Jackson); co-sponsors Rep. Budd Betts (R-H22, Dubois), Sen. Hank Coe (R-S18, Cody), Sen. Vince Picard (R-S9, Laramie)

In 1991, some outfitters and landowners promoted legislation to allocate a specific number of licenses for nonresident hunters. Although the original bill failed, legislation was passed that established two draws -- and two prices -- for nonresident licenses: general and special.

The special draw is more expensive than the general draw and is designed to give nonresident hunters who are willing to pay more money a better chance for at the limited number of nonresident hunting licenses (there are no special draws for resident hunters).

HB 228 proposed to raise the price of the special, nonresident antelope, deer and elk hunting licenses by $100.00. It also proposed to increase the percentage of special, nonresident antelope and deer licenses to

equal that of the special, nonresident elk draw. This would have increased the percentage of antelope licenses by 10 percent and deer by 20 percent from the nonresident pool of licenses.

HB 228 would not have affected the number or opportunity for drawing of any licenses for resident hunters, but the increase in the number of special nonresident licenses would come at the expense of general nonresident licenses.

That is, more nonresident licenses would go into the more expensive special drawing rather than the less expensive general nonresident draw, making it less likely that a nonresident unable to afford the special draw would get a license.

A regular nonresident elk license is currently $410.00, and the special nonresident license is $610.00. HB 228 would have increased the latter to $710.00.

Proponents of the bill argued that HB 228 would benefit outfitters and their clients' chances of drawing a license, which in turn would support Wyoming businesses.

Opponents called HB 228 a "set-aside for the rich" bill, and argued that it would also have negative impacts on resident elk hunters by altering bull/cow ratios.

Game and Fish officials testified that HB 228 could add up to $1.2 million per year to department coffers, but did not take a position on the bill.

HB 228 failed in the House Committee of the Whole ( the first opportunity for full floor debate), 20-39 (1 conflict).