Changes you would like to see in the big game drawings

[timberhunter]

there should also be a cap on non resident permits. i really like the way idaho's system works.

[adamR]

I want archery only permits for oil tags

This would be nice, if you allocate 1 permit for archery, 1 for muzzie, and 2 for rifle or something like that.

[bobcat]

I would like to see a set percentage of the tags going to the highest percentage of points holders. I don't think its a fair system when top point holders rarely draw in the oil tags.

I don't think it's true to say that top point holders rarely draw. I think the system is working as intended. We also don't want new hunters to be discouraged by the low odds so that they don't apply. If anything, I'd like to see them quit using points in the moose, sheep, and goat draws.

Easy for you to say, you got drawn for your sheep tag. Take away my points is like taking away 18 years of hopes and dreams.

Mainly I don't want to see high point holders given even more preference than they already are. I think it's unfair to those who are just getting started. This year the most points a person could have is 20. Square that and you've got your name in the hat 400 times. Compared to the guy applying for the first time who only gets his name in the hat once. Doesn't seem very fair, does it?

Oh, and I haven't drawn moose yet, so I'm hoping my 19 points will help with that.

[JimmyHoffa]

I want archery only permits for oil tags

This would be nice, if you allocate 1 permit for archery, 1 for muzzie, and 2 for rifle or something like that.

So resource allocation for OIL?  Wouldn't you need to buy a declared tag for that to begin with?

[vandeman17]

I don't view my points as anything other than making me feel better because for quality and oil tags, they really don't make tons of difference as far as odds go. What I do view points as is years putting in and waiting for a tag. With that being said, I do like the idea of allocating a percentage of points to guys and gals with a certain amount of points. For those that say the high point total gives them plenty of advantage I say that the difference between .05% and .5% is still horribly low. If we want people to continue to buy into the permit game there has to be some kind of award eventually for continued patience and money invested over the years

[shootem]

Anybody in favor of getting rid of the east/west- archery, muzzy, rifle elk declaration needed before special permit application. Why not be able to apply for what ever special tag I want if my total number of options is limited. For sure you need to buy the licensce before applying for the tag but what difference does it make if I apply for different weapons or locations. Deer special tags cold be the same way. If I buy a deer license then I can apply for any special tag I want. Archery, muzzy, or rifle who cares if I only have 2,3, or 4 options total?

[RadSav]

Wolf Permits!

As mentioned before I'd like to see one maybe two choices only on OIL tags. 
Group size minimums at 2 or 4 depending on volume of tags available.
More spring bear tags and more spring bear areas. (should be OTC but WDFW needs the money  ).
We used to have archery only goat tags - what ever happened to those?
If the Conflict goat hunters are encouraged to kill nannies - a nanny kill should not go against the OIL.
Fewer antlerless elk tags on west side.
Quality Bull season start a week before the cow hunters muck it up.
And a Quality permit with my name on it sometime before I die or am too old.

[idahohuntr]

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. 

I've got an idea based on this site that I think would allow them to do things to improve odds and not lose money...the State provides draw results on July 1...but if you want, starting June 15 you can call a 1-900 number and pay $6.99/minute to listen to your draw results    They could limit you to 1 hunt choice and probably still be revenue neutral. 

[Skillet]

Anybody in favor of getting rid of the east/west- archery, muzzy, rifle elk declaration needed before special permit application. Why not be able to apply for what ever special tag I want if my total number of options is limited. For sure you need to buy the licensce before applying for the tag but what difference does it make if I apply for different weapons or locations. Deer special tags cold be the same way. If I buy a deer license then I can apply for any special tag I want. Archery, muzzy, or rifle who cares if I only have 2,3, or 4 options total?

I believe the idea with the area and/or weapon declaration is to prevent crowding and overharvest in some areas.  Given the odds of pulling the more desirable permits, by forcing the choice of weapon (and area for elk) before you apply you are really committing to your backup plan when you don't draw yet again. 

This is the classic example - If everybody who put in for a Peaches Ridge quality tag (and to add your example, for any weapon) but didn't draw could then head over to the west side and hunt 3pt+ elk on their OTC tag with weapon of choice, it would make for some intensive crowding beyond what we already see in the public lands. 

This is one aspect of the licensing / permit application structure I believe it works as intended to distribute pressure and doesn't need to be changed.

[mfswallace]

No prepay-I have zero trust in this gov't agency to refund my hard earned money in a timely and correct fashion.

Limit non residents tags and make the costs equal to what their home state of residency charges non residents.

Draw run in March

New OIL "non-native" tag category-- it allows 1 lucky non Indian to kill as many deer and elk as they want to in a 12 month period. $100 to apply, $5,000 for tag. Huge revenue boost!!!

[huntnnw]

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.   


 

i like 2 and 3, good points. But I do like the idea of a certain amount of points for quality tags.  Seems like a lot of guys also like the idea of not being able to apply for OIL tags if you apply for quality deer or elk , and vise versa.  I think that would help odds a bunch for OIL tags without impacting revenue.  Love the ideas, keep them coming.

   WA needs to look at ID system..atleast they finally broke up the moose units..still should be more like ID does in some units with 3 different tags in some units

[Wacenturion]

Only allowed to put in for 1 option. No 2nd 3rd or 4th choices

Amen to that.  This is the one thing that would allow just about everyone to reasonably draw their favorite hunts, outside of the limited quality units every couple of years.  Adding three additional choices sent the odds through the roof, not to mention adding on antlerless hunters who can now put in for bull or buck units without loosing their antlerless points.  I would bet that most of the additional three choices are in areas unfamiliar to the applicants and generally a waste of a tag.  

[bobcat]

I don't believe going to only one choice instead of four would make any difference in odds. Sure, in theory it sounds great. But the number of people applying won't change. The same number of people applying for the same number of tags- how does that improve odds? Yes, certain hunts may end up with better odds, but others will then have worse odds. Overall, odds will remain the same.

[vandeman17]

I don't believe going to only one choice instead of four would make any difference in odds. Sure, in theory it sounds great. But the number of people applying won't change. The same number of people applying for the same number of tags- how does that improve odds? Yes, certain hunts may end up with better odds, but others will then have worse odds. Overall, odds will remain the same.

I think the idea is spreading out choices. Say someone with 5 points is putting in for the colockum rifle elk tag as their number one choice because they know the have fall back chances. If they could only apply for one unit they might think twice about applying for a premier unit...

[benhuntin]

I like the idea of shortening the application period and sooner date to start putting in, also like the minimum points opinion for quality draws.  The biggest change I would like to see for the OIL draws is requiring you to pay for the tags before you are entered into the draws.  I would let them buy their points at the current rate, but the years you want to be put in for the draw, you would have to purchase the moose, sheep or goat tag.  Then when/if you don't draw, they refund the price minus a ten dollar processing fee.  I think far less people would put up the money to get into the draw, it should increase our draw odds.  People will still buy the points I believe, so they shouldn't see a drop in revenue.  Maybe even limit the number of species you can apply for in each year?

it seems you are lookin to just better your odds, not make the overall draw better. I am totally against paying for the tag ahead of time. I can swing it and I do in Idaho, but it is total BS to make this a complete pay to hunt state for residents. I would guess that everyone that is for this option has plenty of money to do this. Good luck making it more difficult for the low income/average joe to draw good tags.