NDOW Proposal:

Big Game Tag Applications Available Online-only Beginning in 2013(September 6, 2012)

PURPOSE:

During the Nevada Board of Wildlife Commission’s (NBWC) September 2012 meeting in Las Vegas, the Nevada Department of Wildlife (NDOW) will present this proposal to the commission and to the County Advisory Boards to Manage Wildlife (CABMW) recommending the Department begin accepting big game tag applications online-only (web), thereby eliminating paper applications, beginning in the spring of 2013.

Based upon NBWC and CABMW feedback received in September, and feedback pending from select clients, NDOW may then bring an action item to the December 2012 commission meeting in Reno seeking approval to implement in 2013 an online-only tag application process for big game.

DISCUSSION:

NDOW Draws

NDOW traditionally conducts a number of random game tag drawings throughout the year. With the exception of the big game draws, all tag application processes have transitioned from a combination of paper and online, to online-only, as presented in Table 1:

NDOW Draws and Application Methods

Draw Description Drawing Timeframe

Current Application Method

Restricted NR Guided Deer (big game) March Paper and onlineSpring Turkey February Online onlyMain draw * (big game) May Paper and onlineSecond Draw (big game) July Paper and onlineFirst Come, First Serve (big game) Until seasons close Paper and onlineFall Turkey (presently inactive) September Online only Swan September Online only* Note: in the Main Draw application process, Bear, Silver State Tag and Dream Tag are online only.

Table 1

If approved by the commission, the big game tag application processes listed above will transition to online only.

Application methods of NDOW’s clients Table 2 portrays the number and percentage of applicants (clients) and their application methods for the Main (big game) draw. The numbers of applicants who submitted some or all of their applications using the online process have steadily increased over the

1

Commission Support Material: #17b-1

years, from 92.87% in 2010, to nearly 96% in 2012. The number of paper-only applicants for 2012 was 2,299 out of 57,249 total applicants.

Table 2

To give another perspective, Table 3 compares paper-only applicants to online applicants over a three-year period by county. In the past, there have been concerns that to go to an online-only application process would disadvantage those living in “more rural counties,” as computer and internet availability and communications infrastructure may be limited. While no doubt true in some locations, the information presented in Table 3 reflects a range of online users from a high of 97.46% for Elko County in 2012 (Elko County was also rank-ordered #1 in 2011) to a low of 88.94% for Mineral County in 2012 (this county was ranked-ordered lowest for all three years portrayed):

Table 3

2

Yet another perspective is to look at those paper-only applicants by their accumulation of bonus points. The information in Table 4 makes it clear that, for many, much patient waiting and financial investment has been dedicated to drawing coveted tags:

Table 4

The above information also begs the question, what does the future hold for these applicants should NDOW transition to an online-only application process?

What have other states done when it comes to their online-only big game tag application processes? We posed the question to other states—if you have a drawing for big game tags, is the application process online only? At the writing of this paper, we’ve heard from 9 states. Their responses follow in Table 5.

Table 5

3

What about Utah? Did paper-only applicants abandon Utah’s big game application processes when Utah went online only? Systems Consultants (SCI), the Department’s contractor for Nevada’s tag application and drawing processes, also supports the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR) and their big game tag application processes. In 2007 Utah offered paper applications for the last time, going online-only in 2008. Table 6 identifies Utah’s 2007 applicant count, and the changes through 2012:

Table 6

There was a significant decline in clients (3.5% reduction) in 2008 (UDWR’s first year online only), but other dynamics were at play that affected this decline, notably UDWR increased their application fee from $5 to $10 and instituted a requirement to buy a license to apply. For non-residents, this meant the price of applying for a bonus point in 2008 increased from the $5 to more than $75.  

But, note the comeback in the more recent years. In looking at the next 4 years, 10,132 of these applicants returned and applied online in at least one year:

- In 2008, 8,554 of the original 12,302 returned and applied in the main draw. - By 2012, 10,132 of the original 12,302 had returned and applied in one of the

years since 2007.

In looking at these numbers, it’s apparent that Utah’s paper-only applicants are a tenacious and resilient group who found a way to submit their applications online. We believe Nevada’s clients will respond in a similar manner if Nevada goes online only.

So what’s next for Nevada’s paper-only applicants?

Those 2,299 paper-only applicants addressed in Tables 2 and 3 above are the primary group of hunters of interest for 2012. However, we wanted to examine more than just the most recent year. When we conducted a similar assessment of those who have applied on paper-only over the past four years, that total is 3,953.

To learn the reasons why these 3,953 clients have submitted paper-only applications during the past four years, and to determine why they have not used the online application process during that period, we intend to mail a questionnaire to each applicant asking a series of questions, ultimately wanting to know:

4

- Why they do not apply online?, and - If we go online only, what impact will that have on their future of applying for

Nevada big game tags?

Survey results to be presented to the Commission at the Dec 2012 meeting.

So what are the benefits to these hunters if they become future online Nevada applicants?

There are numerous benefits to going online only, both financial and other, for our clients:

- The client no longer submits all fees upfront.

o At the time of application, non-refundable application and other up-front fees (i.e., predator fee, online fee, etc) are charged against the client’s charge card (credit or debit card, or pre-paid debit card from Wal-Mart, etc).

o But tag fees are not charged until shortly after the drawing, if the applicant successfully draws a tag.

- Online applicants have the option to purchase their licenses only if successful in the drawing for a tag.

o Although this option is available to non-resident paper applicants (due to inaccessibility to a Nevada license agent), resident paper applicants do not have access to this option.

- Online applicants receive an email confirmation immediately after the application(s) is submitted indicating the application was received. Paper applicants don’t receive such notification unless a more costly delivery method is used (i.e., FedEx).

- Online applicants can apply for bear tags, Silver State Tags, Dream Tags and purchase stamps. Paper applicants don’t have this option.

- Online applicants have the ability to amend previously submitted applications prior to the deadline (i.e., withdraw an erroneous application and resubmit a corrected application; withdraw an application and submit a bonus point-only application). Online applicants can also submit bonus point-only applications during the seven days immediately following the application deadline.

o Only if time permits (mailing time) can a paper applicant make corrections to an application. And the opportunity to submit a bonus point-only application after the deadline is not available to paper applicants.

5

- Regarding application errors, such errors are almost nonexistent for online users, thus better ensuring an application is not rejected. Table 7 portrays the type and numbers of errors experienced over the past 7 years.

o An error may occur with an online application, but these are mostly due to a combination of an online application AND a paper application received from the same client, which once processed, are rejected because an applicant cannot have two applications submitted for the same species.

Table 7

- Almost all of the above errors are unique to paper applications. And if not corrected prior to the application deadline, the errors result in a rejected application, as addressed in Table 8:

Table 8

6

- If the commission approves this online-only proposal, NDOW will make changes in Commission Regulation moving the application deadline time from 5:00PM to 11:00PM, giving clients extra time to complete their applications.

o The existing 5:00PM deadline was established years ago to allow contractor staff the time to retrieve mailed paper applications from the post office by 5:00PM.

What are the benefits to NDOW to go online only?

While many of the financial benefits have already been realized due to online usage being at 96%, other benefits will be gained, both administratively and financially:

- Elimination of pre-printed paper applications. Pre-printed applications are only sent to clients who have bonus points on record and that apply by mail.

o Publishing efforts by staff would also be eliminated which would otherwise be required to modify the forms annually.

- Elimination of the over-the-counter application forms. Again, this would be a time savings to staff.

- Reduction/elimination of rejected applications due to paper application errors.

In addition to benefiting the client, fewer rejected applications means less administrative time for staff.

- Further reduction in mailing costs.

o All clients would receive the lower-cost postcards, reminding clients of the application period.

o Fewer rejected applications also means fewer correction/rejection letters sent to applicants.

- Bounced checks all but eliminated.

- Draw refunds eliminated. Paper applicants have to submit full fees at the time of application. If they are unsuccessful, a refund file is created and submitted to the Treasurer’s office for the refund to be generated (see Table 9). No cash being deposited means there will be no need for a refund file being created and processed. Elimination of the refund process will also save time for SCI, NDOW and Treasurer’s office staff.

Table 9

7

RECOMMENDATION:

This proposal is provided as information only at this time. Based upon feedback obtained during the September 2012 commission meeting, NDOW staff may bring an action item to the December 2012 commission meeting for commission consideration/approval.

Note: Statistics presented in this paper provided by SCI.

8

Bob Haughian/rdh/Chief, NDOW Operations Division/775-688-1580/September 6, 2012

9