Changes you would like to see in the big game drawings

[jrebel]

Three thoughts.....

1.  I don't agree with having a certain number of points before applying for certain hunts.  Anyone should be able to apply at any time for any hunt.

2.  Set a % of tags that go to people with the most points.  Example.....25% of the tags will go to people with 15 points or more.....This should not exclude people with 15 or more points from drawing the other 75% of the quota.  It just guarantees that 25% of the tags would go to people with multiple points.  This will help level the playing field and will also give people that have multiple points / years a better chance of drawing. 

The way the system is now....your points don't mean anything.  If you have 4500 applicants / people with an average of 11 points (squared) per person, your 15 or 25 points are still a very small percentage of the draw.   

3.  A system that will not allow you to draw multiple tags in the same species.  If  you draw quality....you cannot draw buck or doe.  If don't draw quality but draw buck, you cant draw doe, ect.   It is really dumb that you you could theoretically draw quality, buck and doe all in one year and only kill one animal.  Wast of points.   


 

[Westside88]

I'd like to see the draw take place earlier so that people who have to apply for vacation time can do so and make the most of their tag. I also would like the option of applying for a quality tag prior to choosing a method ie: you could apply for a quality rifle tag and if not drawn go with another weapon type ( I'd even pay more for my app to have this option.) as far as setting the permit seasons, I think the quality tags need to emphasize low hunter density as well as favorable timing. I'm all for opening up more units to all user groups, but when seasons run together or right up against each other it diminishes a quality tag.

[huntnphool]

I would also like to see points passed on to one designated family members through a will should someone die. Designated Wild ID must be set up in advance. This, of course, is completely unacceptable to the "where's mine" and "all about me or nobody" members on this site.

I like this, only if it is in a will, to one person, and only after the gifter has passed...

Why does it always have to come down to money?  I say it every year, just because some of you are apparently well off and could afford to pay more per application or fund every oil hunt before you get drawn doesn't mean the average hunter could.  So because I have a kid and one on the way and don't have a ton of extra money lying around I don't deserve to draw an OIL hunt?  If I get drawn I will come up with the money but I can't just let the state borrow $1000 every spring until I find out I didn't get drawn.

Huntnphool you mentioned the "wheres mine" and "all about me or nobody" members, that's a two way street.  Those of you that aren't happy with the fairest system available only complain because you haven't been drawn but it is the fairest system possible! Get over it! 

The only change I would really be ok with is limiting every draw to two choices like quality is now.  This would drastically increase odds across that board.

 Get over it? I don't see you advocating for the elimination of late hunts, how is that considered "where's mine"?

[huntnphool]

This, of course, is completely unacceptable to the "where's mine" and "all about me or nobody" members on this site.

Case and point right here!

That would not be fair. A young hunter just starting out doesn't deserve to have a lot of points just given to him. They need to be earned.

[Skillet]

Points should NOT be able to be gifted or willed, ever.  They are not something tangible a person possesses - they are only a record of how long a person has failed to draw.

While I believe the WDFW was well-Intentioned by providing people points for turning in poachers, they really polluted the intention of the draw system by assigning a non-time related value to them. That screw up on their part doesn't change the fundamental reason for points  in the first place - they are meant to help the odds of those who have waited.  Not to help those privelidged few who are born to unlucky applicants gain an advantage over those who have been applying for years.

[Gringo31]

I can think of a lot of things I'd change but when I put them against the states mission to collect as much money as possible from us while convincing us we are getting more opportunity they seem to not work.

For example:  You can't limit a person to buck deer OR quality deer because of loss of revenue.  You could offer extra tags for extra options (like multi season) but that just makes people upset that it's a rich mans game.  The only thing I think they should do that doesn't rattle too many people is do the draw about 3 months earlier.   

You could add a few versions of that as well.  Do the OIL tags earlier than the normal tags.  This would change peoples plans if they get drawn.......but I know many people who unnecessarily worry about drawing too many tags to only get nadda.

[adamR]

I would also like to see points passed on to one designated family members through a will should someone die. Designated Wild ID must be set up in advance. This, of course, is completely unacceptable to the "where's mine" and "all about me or nobody" members on this site.

I like this, only if it is in a will, to one person, and only after the gifter has passed...

Why does it always have to come down to money?  I say it every year, just because some of you are apparently well off and could afford to pay more per application or fund every oil hunt before you get drawn doesn't mean the average hunter could.  So because I have a kid and one on the way and don't have a ton of extra money lying around I don't deserve to draw an OIL hunt?  If I get drawn I will come up with the money but I can't just let the state borrow $1000 every spring until I find out I didn't get drawn.

Huntnphool you mentioned the "wheres mine" and "all about me or nobody" members, that's a two way street.  Those of you that aren't happy with the fairest system available only complain because you haven't been drawn but it is the fairest system possible! Get over it! 

The only change I would really be ok with is limiting every draw to two choices like quality is now.  This would drastically increase odds across that board.

 Get over it? I don't see you advocating for the elimination of late hunts, how is that considered "where's mine"?

Didn't mean you get over it, wasn't specifically calling you out I was just using your quote.  Just stating that those who are upset that they haven't drawn should get over it.

[hughjorgan]

Only allow one choice in a category.

Make people choose between special permits for deer and elk or applying for an OIL hunt.

Don't allow people to apply for bull/buck permits and cow/doe permits make them choose one category.

[notellumcreek]

Tag quotas for nonresident oil tags.
10 year wait after drawing a quality deer or elk tag.
5 Year wait after drawing a buck or bull tag.
1 year wait after drawing an anterless tag.
oil tag money up front when you apply, resident and nonresident.
Nonresidents buy a license when applying instead of buying a tag.  Only buy tag if drawn.  Quota on nonresident tags.
Unable to draw multiple tags the same year.

 

Only allow one choice in a category.

 

[Halo]

Everybody wants better odds, better quality and want it cheaper but it just doesn't work that way. It reminds me of what a contractor friend of mine always says, "you can have it fast or perfect or cheap, but you're gonna have to pick one because you cant have all three."

[Skillet]

Everybody wants better odds, better quality and want it cheaper but it just doesn't work that way. It reminds me of what a contractor friend of mine always says, "you can have it fast or perfect or cheap, but you're gonna have to pick one because you cant have all three."

 
I've used a version of this for many years when dealing with upper-management's expectations:

"Good, Fast, Cheap - pick two."

[splitshot]

I would like to limit each post to have only 2 or 3 quotes,  reduce the clutter of a post and repetition.   mike w

[timberhunter]

i like the idea of apply for deer and elk or oil, but not both. i also like the idea of applying for either buck/bull or cow/doe but not both of them.

[Curly]

I'd like to see them get rid of quality categories and just put all under buck and bull. They'd probably have to make every permit the cost of what quality are now to make up for the revenue loss.

[bobcat]

I'd like to see them get rid of quality categories and just put all under buck and bull. They'd probably have to make every permit the cost of what quality are now to make up for the revenue loss.

I'd like that too but I just don't think they'd ever do it.