Changes you would like to see in the big game drawings

[trophyhunt]

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.

i can almost guarantee if you and I compare checking accounts right now you win!  I'm just an average Joe when it comes to income, the odds of everyone drawing a OIL tag years ago when we did have to buy the tag first, were much better than they are now.  OIL tags are special tags, not everyone will get a chance to hunt them in their life.  If you buy points until your ready to put in, and it's a priority, you can afford to do it.   I don't think we are wanting to out price residents on putting in, if you draw you have to pay anyway.  Just trying to take the number of names in the hat down from over 1 million like it is now with the most popular tag.

[Wacenturion]

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.

What math are you using?  If everyone puts in for four choices the extra three choices are non existent hunters.  It's just someone replicating themselves three times over.  Lets use my favorite hunt as an example.

Blue Mtn Foothill W.....used to be 600 people putting in for 100 permits.  Use to draw every 3 or 4 years max.  Then came four choices.  At that point 1700 to now 2000 people putting in for 100 permits.  You think maybe the odds went up?  Then recently doe hunters were allowed to put in for buck hunts without loosing their doe points....now appproximately 2200 applicants for 100 tags.  Average point to draw equals now is nine.

This example can be overlaid to every normal unit outside of quality limited draw tags.  Get rid of the extra choices and have everyone put in for their favorite and perferred area and odds go way down.  Everyone would be happier.  What we have is just a shell game to make $$$.

[180-GRAIN]

How about a percentage cutoff for non-resident applicants? Say 10% for them? Would be more opportunity for residents to draw tags. Other states have this in place and it seems to work. I don't think we have this in place at least I could not find anything.

[bobcat]

My math is simple. Let's just look at the mountain goat tags- last year there was 10,759 applicants for 22 tags. There were 12 hunts to choose from and applicants can select up to 4 choices. Using those numbers, overall odds of drawing a goat tag are 1 in 489, meaning only one person out of every 489 applicants will get a tag.

Now, if only one choice was allowed rather than four, the number of applicants would still be 10,759. Overall odds for a goat tag doesn't change, it's still 1 in 489. Yes, certain hunts may be less popular and odds will be better for that hunt. Other areas will be more popular and odds for that hunt may be worse than average. But in reality, the only way to really increase odds of drawing is to decrease the number of applicants or increase the number of tags. Going from four choices to one choice on an application does neither of those things.

Here's one thing to consider- a few years ago the number of choices allowed on quality deer and elk applications went from four to two. Did those permits suddenly become easy to draw?

[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.

i can almost guarantee if you and I compare checking accounts right now you win!  I'm just an average Joe when it comes to income, the odds of everyone drawing a OIL tag years ago when we did have to buy the tag first, were much better than they are now.  OIL tags are special tags, not everyone will get a chance to hunt them in their life.  If you buy points until your ready to put in, and it's a priority, you can afford to do it.   I don't think we are wanting to out price residents on putting in, if you draw you have to pay anyway.  Just trying to take the number of names in the hat down from over 1 million like it is now with the most popular tag.

in your first post you said you wanted to improve the draw system not take people out of the drawing, so I guess I'm confused on what you are trying to do? And I wouldn't bet  on the bank account thing either.

[muledhunter]

This is probably unpopular but I think they should limit what you can put in for as far as species go but still allow ghost points in the ones you can't apply for. I am just not a fan of being able to throw your name in every hat out there

totally agree. 1 oil tag a year. Deer and elk are fine

[LabChamp]

My math is simple. Let's just look at the mountain goat tags- last year there was 10,759 applicants for 22 tags. There were 12 hunts to choose from and applicants can select up to 4 choices. Using those numbers, overall odds of drawing a goat tag are 1 in 489, meaning only one person out of every 489 applicants will get a tag.

Now, if only one choice was allowed rather than four, the number of applicants would still be 10,759. Overall odds for a goat tag doesn't change, it's still 1 in 489. Yes, certain hunts may be less popular and odds will be better for that hunt. Other areas will be more popular and odds for that hunt may be worse than average. But in reality, the only way to really increase odds of drawing is to decrease the number of applicants or increase the number of tags. Going from four choices to one choice on an application does neither of those things.

Here's one thing to consider- a few years ago the number of choices allowed on quality deer and elk applications went from four to two. Did those permits suddenly become easy to draw?

  

[Wacenturion]

My math is simple. Let's just look at the mountain goat tags- last year there was 10,759 applicants for 22 tags. There were 12 hunts to choose from and applicants can select up to 4 choices. Using those numbers, overall odds of drawing a goat tag are 1 in 489, meaning only one person out of every 489 applicants will get a tag.

Now, if only one choice was allowed rather than four, the number of applicants would still be 10,759. Overall odds for a goat tag doesn't change, it's still 1 in 489. Yes, certain hunts may be less popular and odds will be better for that hunt. Other areas will be more popular and odds for that hunt may be worse than average. But in reality, the only way to really increase odds of drawing is to decrease the number of applicants or increase the number of tags. Going from four choices to one choice on an application does neither of those things.

Here's one thing to consider- a few years ago the number of choices allowed on quality deer and elk applications went from four to two. Did those permits suddenly become easy to draw?

Your statement above in red just made my point.  Your examples however are like comparing apples to elephants.  I was referring to normal units, not limited moose, goat, sheep, quality or some limited bull tags.

If we go to one choice only my favorite unit, Blue Mtn. West goes back to far less applicants than there are now.... my odds are better and I draw sooner than every 7-9 years.  Same for other units outside the quality and limited species draw. 

[Wacenturion]

I'm sure we have all witnessed people on the forum starting threads right after results are posted stating ..."hey I drew so and so"......never hunted there, can anyone help out".  Blues and Palouse are two key examples.  Usual answer is mostly private, so unless you know someone, you're out of luck.  Wasted draw in some to many cases.

Most 2nd through 4th choices are probably somewhat random based on hear say rather than familiarity of the area.  Not always the case, but a large percentage I would wager. 

[westside bull]

They need to make all Blacktail tags Buck hunts not Quality that needs to change Like the Mashel and White river for example.

[Colville]

If the solution isn't revenue neutral, it's D.O.A.  So only applying for one oil species will only work if you can still buy the point for the others.  It's the problem with the other reduction strategies. If they rely on reducing the apps you can purchase and apply for it will only work if they make up the revenue with increased app charges. Maybe that would be worth it to some but that is the only way it would work.

Wacenturion, I suspect that the cross over of doe/cow running parallel to buck/bull was more harm than the number of hunts you can apply for.   There were thousands of doe only hunters who had no reason to apply for buck who may as well now, nothing to lose. Can't get the genie back in that bottle because of the revenue.  If you go to one unit only per app, I think there'll be a shift of some pressure back to "easier" to draw units.  I think if Entiat/Sawkane/Pogue/Chiwawa etc become borderline OIL permits many will look to improve their odds elsewhere.  All the points out there exist so if you only disperse them rather than cut them out the pool all together, pressure simply shifts.

I have kids that apply for moose.  I don't think unlicensed youth should be able to buy points.  I'd be happy to see the net cost of all OIL permits go up by whatever the revenue loss is to youth point building before they are licensed hunters. It just seems obvious to me that kids with nothing invested and no time waited in line should not build equity, not on top of youth opportunity in these same species.

The math sucks. Tag #'s are fixed in relative terms.  The need for revenue starts at no loss from last year's number so either the costs go up and opportunity down or it's more of what we have now.

[johnnyaustin44]

They need to make all Blacktail tags Buck hunts not Quality that needs to change Like the Mashel and White river for example.

also earlier draw time. Do spring bear and general permits together due by end of January or February

[BULLBLASTER]

Id like to see permits changed to tags.... so if you draw successfully, your tag is good for that hunt. No general season. That wouod make people think more about what they apply for.  or better yet mirror idahos system.
I know it would get messy with the 47 categpries we have. 

[Sitka_Blacktail]

I'd like to see the draws changed back to the way they were when I was growing up. You could only apply for one hunt per species. And if you drew, there was a three year wait until you could apply again for that species. And do away with preference points. The system we have today is a scam to bring in money to the state. It doesn't help your draw odds in the long run.

[JimmyHoffa]

They need to make all Blacktail tags Buck hunts not Quality that needs to change Like the Mashel and White river for example.

also earlier draw time. Do spring bear and general permits together due by end of January or February

I would like earlier draws, too.  But I think they would have to split draws or cut antlerless tags/seasons.  There are elk seasons that run until the end of March.  Then you get 10 days to report or however long the lab processes organs from kills, so Apr 10 all data collected.  Then the bios have to place lines through dots and look for trends (a week maybe).  Then they have to inform and wait for decisions through out the dept (another week).  So May 1st would seem to be the earliest in my wild assumption here to apply to the draw.  Unless they split it for fall season and winter season draws (antlerless).  Could do the OILs and seasons that end in Dec by late Jan or early Feb.  Then have a draw like it is now for the antlerless tags that go Jan-Mar.