NDOW Application Hunt System - Reallocation of Tags

Presented by Systems Consultants to NDOW on June 18, 2012

BACKGROUND

There has long been a desire on the part of the sporting public to place more of the "returned" tags back in the hands of other sportsmen. Specifically, the desire is to re-allocate the unused returned tags to alternate sportsmen.

With the original "Return a Tag for only Three Reasons" policy a tag could be returned for only reasons of Death, Military Orders, or Physical Incapacity (certified by a physician). Under this policy, the annual returns were relatively small and manageable. The returns typically numbered less than 75 per yearand only "Trophy" tags (Antelope, Elk, Bighorn Sheep and Goat) were eligible for re-allocation. Because of some perceived concerns in the re-allocation process (documented in a 1990 LCB audit of the Big Game Draw process), a more formal protocol was developed that entailed a rigorous and documented attempt to allocate the tags via a list of alternates. This process has continued through the present day.

The current process requires strict linear steps through the alternate list in draw number sequence with each alternate client contacted at least four (4) times over two (2) days by at least two (2) different operators before attempts are abandoned for that client and attempts continue with the next client. While this approach assures consistent handling of the re-allocation and lowers the risk that individuals on the alternate list will be skipped in favor of other sportsmen who fall later on the list, it is tedious and time-consuming and basically makes it unfeasible to allocate larger numbers of tags like those returned for deer hunts.

The desire to re-allocate tags accelerated when the "Return a Tag for Any Reason" policy was adopted in 2009.With the "Return a Tag for Any Reason" policy, individuals who qualify with one of the traditional reasons of Death, Military Orders or Physical Incapacity; will still obtain a refund and the restoration of their bonus points. If an individual doesn't qualify with one of these traditional reasons, they can still return their tag, and have their bonus points restored, but they do NOT receive a refund.

The new "Return a Tag for Any Reason" policy, is applicable to all species, but only Bighorn Sheep and Goat were included in the re-allocation process as it was feared that the returned tags for other species (Deer, Elk and Antelope) could prove too numerous to re-allocate under the current protocol.

The purpose of this document is to propose an alternative means or protocol for re-allocating returned tags that will allow for more tags (and more species) to be re-allocated.

NEW PROPOSAL ALLOCATION METHODOLOGY

The fundamental problem with the current re-allocation process isn't that it is linear (Client #1 must be considered before Client #2) but that up to two days may pass between the consideration of one client and the next one. Our new proposal for allocation will still be linear, but it will immediately allocate a tag when it becomes available.

The premise to the approach is that instead of calling alternative clients and asking them whether they wish to accept a returned tag (and possibly spend two days in the effort), we'll ask that clients "pre-qualify" or "pre-affirm" their willingness to accept an alternative tag by a check off box on each species for which they apply. Namely, when someone applies for an antelope, they will be able to check a box that basically affirms "if I'm not drawn, I will accept an alternate tag if it becomes available and my credit card will be charged immediately". This box would NOT be available if the applicant applies for a bonus point only. By implication, this option for alternate tags would be restricted to on-line (web) application applicants only. The reason being that for speed and timing this is a credit card based approach and only web applicants apply with credit cards. Because of the problems associated with being saddled with a tag a day or two before a season starts, it may be desirable to have a "cutoff" and mention that cut off in the affirmation. I.e., instead of "if I'm not drawn, I will accept an alternate tag if it becomes available and my credit card will be charged immediately", we might say "if I'm not drawn, I will accept an alternate tag if it becomes available at least one week before the seasons starts and my credit card will be charged immediately".

The basic approach to implementation would be that whenever a tag is returned, we'll immediately start a new "automated alternate" process. This would be done during business hours on business days. This new automated alternate process will look at the remaining unsuccessful clients in draw order who have checked the box that they will accept an alternate tag. If their credit card has previously been attempted for an alternate and was unsuccessful (the date and time of the attempt will be documented), they will be flagged to be ignored in any future alternate consideration for the current draw year. The primary reason for flagging and not continuing to process unsuccessful alternates is because Debit Cards appear as Credit Cards electronically and continuing to attempt after an unsuccessful attempt may cause NSF fees to accrue to the client. If the credit card charge is successful for the next appropriate alternate, the tag will be issued and the client's record updated to prevent further consideration for this client and hunt if other tags become available. However, the client WILL remain eligible for other species/hunts if an alternate tag becomes available and his card was successfully charged for a previous alternate. If the credit card charge is unsuccessful, the client's record will be updated to prevent further consideration for this client regardless of hunt if other tags become available. Consideration of whether a client's card is eligible will be based upon the card they have on record for the application that was unsuccessful but subsequently has an alternate card.

When credit card charges are submitted for the main draw, it is a process that is voluminous and runs through the night. A fair number of "Denied" statuses (up to 15%) are received during these long batches that run through the night. Time and experience has proven that while the credit card gateway returns "Denied" that is a bit of a catch-all response and, in fact, many of these transactions are ones that were not even seen by the bank sponsoring the card. Namely, if they are running backup or other nightly procedures, instead of returning a more informative status like "Unavailable - Try Again Later", the gateway simply returned "Denied". In the early days of our processing we misinterpreted these as a TRUE denial like we'd see with credit limitations, stolen cards and cancelled accounts. However, a number of high profile cases with well-heeled clients proved that it was NOT necessarily a true "Denied" status for the card and if we simply re-submitted the transactions later (the next day), at a different time, we would have success and, in fact, the original 15% in denied might reduce to well less than 5% denied.

This problem with the blanket "Denied" responses suggests that we may have a similar problem with individual credit card charges submitted during the day for clients who are eligible for a re-allocated tag. However, we believe that transactions submitted during business day/business hour time frames are unlikely to result in "Denied" responses for administrative or bank back-up reasons. I.e., that the banks are likely to relegate back-up or other administrative procedures that would take their services off-line to night time hours to minimize impact. But, to prevent creating another lengthy process with multiple charge attempts required, we proposed a "one and done" approach on attempting to charge for an alternate tag sale.

It is possible that the recipients of Alternate Tags may end up having to return their tags for any reason as well, in spite of indicating that they'd accept the tag if available. There are at least two ways to handle this scenario. One way would be to require that the Alternate Tags be NON-returnable other than for the original prescribed reasons. However, we believe it would be better to simply put these returns, if they occur, back through the process and assign them to someone else.

DRAWBACKS

This proposed approach does have some drawbacks:

1) Some one-time programming would be required to modify the system to attempt real-time re-allocation of tags and real-time charging. The cost of this programming and the associated QA, Training and Documentation is estimated to be 70 hours of programming ($7,000), 20 hours of QA ($1,000) and 20 hours of documentation and training changes ($2,000) -- for a total of $10,000. The programming would include changes to the Application Web Site to ask the "Will you take an alternate tag?" question, changes to the posting process, Credit Card Processing changes, Automated Alternate processing.

We have some concerns about issuing licenses to folks who don't have them already. This is because it is possible to create multiple client IDs in the licensing system by purchasing licenses manually (at paper agents) where the license info isn't legible and a new client record is created. It is also possible to do it when an individual provides a POS agent with a different SSN than used in the AHS. We don’t think enough people have multiple NWDS IDs to warrant not automatically selling them a license if they don’t have one recorded in AHS. They either have a license linked to the record that is linked to their AHS ID OR they have to agree to buy one. The NWDS Client ID will be right 98% of the time and the times it isn’t, we can void the license and merge the records.

2) The approach is predicated on web applications only. For 2012, 4,392 applications were received on paper and 162,601 were received on the web (paper 2.63% and web 97.37%) The applications that are received on paper and these would be ineligible. 2,299 clients out of 57,274 applied on paper exclusively. There is a slightly higher rate when consider clients rather than applications. Namely, 2,299 clients out of 57,274 applied in 2011 exclusively on paper. This is 4.014% who apply ONLY on paper and none of these clients would be eligible unless they switch to applying on the web.

3) A new regulation would be required to authorize and implement this approach.

4) Some clients may cry foul that they were not considered in the re-allocation because their charge was "denied" and their bank claims they have no record of any charge being presented, much less denied. This happens now with the nightly "back-up" scenario, but we believe will be much less likely to happen during business day, business hour time frames. In any event we have a record of the time the charge was submitted and the status that was returned and can demonstrate we did make a good faith effort.

5) Some clients receiving alternates automatically, may wish to return the alternate tag for any reason. We believe this could be best handled by allowing it and simply re-allocating the tag again.

6) Clients will frequently call after the initial application charge was successful to request that another card be used subsequently if they are successful in the draw. This can happen for a variety of reasons, including lost or stolen cards, closure of the credit card account in favor of another company, etc. etc. At the present time, we ONLY process these changes if the client is successful in the draw. Those changes requested when no post draw charge is required are not updated. With the new processing approach, we'll need to process ALL requested updates as the client may not be successful in the draw but may have success as an alternate. This will entail additional manual processing and will increase costs on a per application basis by $.01 (one cent).

7) There are currently some undersubscribed hunts. I.e., there are tags left over unallocated in the main draw. If one of the allocated tags for these undersubscribed hunts is returned, there is no alternate list to even allocate an alternate. In a related scenario, we may not have a sufficient number of applicants who check mark their applications as willing to receive and be charged for an alternate automatically. It is our recommendation that these tags simply be left unallocated to avoid trying to implement multiple procedures.