Bighorn sheep increase to apply

[Falcon]

If you have a lot of points it's a big investment, I don't see them going away!

 

[X-Force]

The best way to increase odds is buy a lot of raffle tickets or a governor tag! 

I cant the goat raffle got flooded 

[bearpaw]

The best way to increase odds is buy a lot of raffle tickets or a governor tag! 

I cant the goat raffle got flooded 

A bigger flood could work! 

[BULLBLASTER]

If you have a lot of points it's a big investment, I don't see them going away! 

I agree. They aren't going anywhere unfortunately. But for a points state I actually like how wa does points.

I don't look at the points as an investment unless I can cash them in for a guaranteed tag like wyo or Utah. For wa I just look at them like a count of years. 

[shanevg]

I can see what you guys are saying but what I'm saying is that having everyone acquiring a point for everything across the board and only applying for just 1 is just a gimmick with the same results. Meaning we have 30,000 permits each year and 61,500 applicants with 245,000 applications whether you apply for only 1 species or you apply for every single permit your odds would remain the same because those numbers arent changing. The only thing changing is the preciseness of an individuals application.

If we had 30000 permits and 61500 applicants with 61500 applications we would have a meaningful change.

To make my point: now until 10 years

1) current system : 30,000 permits, 61,500 applicants, 245,000 applications (total points accumulated)
2) your system you can get points for all categories like today but only put in for 1 species: 30,000 permits, 61,500 applicants, 61,500 applications, 245,000 total points (application point and category points)
3) my system you only receive a point for the single category you put in for 30,000 permits, 61,500 applicants, 61,500 applications (total points)

After ten years the total points accumulated from now until then is as follows
1) current system 2,350,000
2) your system 2,350,000
3) my system 315,000

Your math is off on my system vs yours. (2 vs 3). The odds would be the same in scenario 2 as they would be in 3 because the max number of points that could actually be used in a given year would be reduced to 315k (based on your numbers.)

You are right that there would still be another 2 million points floating around in the system but they are "useless points" as they would not be capable of affecting draw odds in any given year.

Where system 2 changes things is for new applicants compared to established applicants. By only allowing people to accumulate points in one category at a time you are allowing new applicants to "catch up" to people who already have points but don't apply for that species for a number of years. By allowing everyone to continue to gain points in all categories hunters like myself who have 20 points per category would be at an advantage forever, even if we jump from category to category in a given year. That is why I said I would be completely fine with system 3 as it is more fair for those new hunters, it would also incentivize picking one category to apply for and not jump around. I just think it will be a really hard sell to convince people to essentially abandon their points accumulated in 4 categories to just focus on one species. They would be more willing if they had the ability to continue to accumulate in all categories and jump category to category in various years.

[Bigshooter]

First decreasing applications is not the only way to improve odds.  More tags will also increase odds.  Second I believe there is a 0% chance of wdfw ever limiting the numbers of different categories you can apply for.  That results in them brining in less revenue which I don't think they will ever agree too.

[shanevg]

First decreasing applications is not the only way to improve odds.  More tags will also increase odds.  Second I believe there is a 0% chance of wdfw ever limiting the numbers of different categories you can apply for.  That results in them brining in less revenue which I don't think they will ever agree too.

Again, that's why I suggest they allow people to continue to accrue points in all categories. 

[mfswallace]

The best and simplest solution would be to increase game populations!!! Predator management is the only way we get more permits!

[shanevg]

The best and simplest solution would be to increase game populations!!! Predator management is the only way we get more permits!

That may be the best way but certainly not the simplest way.  WDFW has to deal with our liberal state when passing any legislation.  For example the only reason we can't hunt cougars with hounds or bait bears is because of people led initiatives.  Wolf populations as well as most other predators are closely monitored by anti-hunting "conservation" groups so any effort to reduce predators has way too many hoops to jump through.  Balance that part of WDFW's commissioned duty is to maintain healthy populations of all animals, so complete reduction or elimination of predators would be impossible.

Ultimately, any predator management and subsequent game population increase is a VERY slow and difficult process to achieve in this state.  Would better game populations allow for more tags and better odds?  Of course?  But I'm not satisfied with the status quo of our point system and if we can take an immediate (2017 season) change that will increase odds across the board then why would we not take advantage of that?

[idahohuntr]

The best and simplest solution would be to increase game populations!!! Predator management is the only way we get more permits!

I'd say for bighorn sheep tag numbers the easiest thing to do would be a ban on grazing domestic sheep and goats in any bighorn habitat.

[X-Force]

First decreasing applications is not the only way to improve odds.  More tags will also increase odds.  Second I believe there is a 0% chance of wdfw ever limiting the numbers of different categories you can apply for.  That results in them brining in less revenue which I don't think they will ever agree too.

Again, that's why I suggest they allow people to continue to accrue points in all categories.

To beat a dead horse... Instead of limiting people to 1 category, have everyone apply for categories as they are and have them order categories into list of importance and once a permit is drawn they are done for that year. It would give you the same theoretical 1/250 odds a that you discussed earlier and people wouldn't be discouraged from applying to all permits.

Again, I think any change that doesn't actually decrease points/applicantions is still a gimmick.

[Antlershed]

First decreasing applications is not the only way to improve odds.  More tags will also increase odds.  Second I believe there is a 0% chance of wdfw ever limiting the numbers of different categories you can apply for.  That results in them brining in less revenue which I don't think they will ever agree too.

Again, that's why I suggest they allow people to continue to accrue points in all categories.

To beat a dead horse... Instead of limiting people to 1 category, have everyone apply for categories as they are and have them order categories into list of importance and once a permit is drawn they are done for that year. It would give you the same theoretical 1/250 odds a that you discussed earlier and people wouldn't be discouraged from applying to all permits.

Again, I think any change that doesn't actually decrease points/applicantions is still a gimmick.

The problem is, you are saying points and applications like they are interchangeable. In the system Shane is talking about, they are not.

Let's say, hypothetically, that in the current system we have 15,000 people who apply for moose, sheep and goat, and 100,000 that apply for deer/elk. Now, I would guess it's pretty safe to assume that there is some cross pollination in each group, there aren't 115,000 unique ID's in this. Therefore, by making them choose between OIL or Deer/Elk, you will be lowering one/both of the applicant bases. If someone chooses to apply for deer/elk, and we allow them to still by OIL points, the objective is still achieved. For that one individual, we have lowered the OIL applicant base by 1 for that year. 

[shanevg]

First decreasing applications is not the only way to improve odds.  More tags will also increase odds.  Second I believe there is a 0% chance of wdfw ever limiting the numbers of different categories you can apply for.  That results in them brining in less revenue which I don't think they will ever agree too.

Again, that's why I suggest they allow people to continue to accrue points in all categories.

To beat a dead horse... Instead of limiting people to 1 category, have everyone apply for categories as they are and have them order categories into list of importance and once a permit is drawn they are done for that year. It would give you the same theoretical 1/250 odds a that you discussed earlier and people wouldn't be discouraged from applying to all permits.

Again, I think any change that doesn't actually decrease points/applicantions is still a gimmick.

While that concept would marginally improve odds it would be a very minor improvement at best. There aren't enough tags to actually draw to actually cut down on the number of applicants in subsequent categories. By that system anyone with a lick of sense would just out the oil tags as their top priority. There are only roughly 100 total oil tags so that would really not improve oil odds at all and only remove about 100 people from the deer/elk draws.

[X-Force]

First decreasing applications is not the only way to improve odds.  More tags will also increase odds.  Second I believe there is a 0% chance of wdfw ever limiting the numbers of different categories you can apply for.  That results in them brining in less revenue which I don't think they will ever agree too.

Again, that's why I suggest they allow people to continue to accrue points in all categories.

To beat a dead horse... Instead of limiting people to 1 category, have everyone apply for categories as they are and have them order categories into list of importance and once a permit is drawn they are done for that year. It would give you the same theoretical 1/250 odds a that you discussed earlier and people wouldn't be discouraged from applying to all permits.

Again, I think any change that doesn't actually decrease points/applicantions is still a gimmick.

The problem is, you are saying points and applications like they are interchangeable. In the system Shane is talking about, they are not.

Let's say, hypothetically, that in the current system we have 15,000 people who apply for moose, sheep and goat, and 100,000 that apply for deer/elk. Now, I would guess it's pretty safe to assume that there is some cross pollination in each group, there aren't 115,000 unique ID's in this. Therefore, by making them choose between OIL or Deer/Elk, you will be lowering one/both of the applicant bases. If someone chooses to apply for deer/elk, and we allow them to still by OIL points, the objective is still achieved. For that one individual, we have lowered the OIL applicant base by 1 for that year. 

They are interchangeable if you are able to acquire points while not actually applying for the permit because while you may be sitting out of a particular category for 1-20 years once that applicant jumps into that permit the points they acquired give them an advantage. It is the same issue many western states are having where people are ghosting point until they hit the magical number to draw a particular tag and once a new round of high points applicants jump in from no where that tag is pushed farther down the line.

The math also works out the same whether you go from a tiered system like I mentioned or whether you have to select only a species or 2 and still acquire points across all species because in the end you have 2 numbers that matter; the number of permits and the number of points. Individual hunts may show better odds in a select 1 or 2 species system but across the board the lost opportunity to draw other permits makes up that difference.

[X-Force]

First decreasing applications is not the only way to improve odds.  More tags will also increase odds.  Second I believe there is a 0% chance of wdfw ever limiting the numbers of different categories you can apply for.  That results in them brining in less revenue which I don't think they will ever agree too.

Again, that's why I suggest they allow people to continue to accrue points in all categories.

To beat a dead horse... Instead of limiting people to 1 category, have everyone apply for categories as they are and have them order categories into list of importance and once a permit is drawn they are done for that year. It would give you the same theoretical 1/250 odds a that you discussed earlier and people wouldn't be discouraged from applying to all permits.

Again, I think any change that doesn't actually decrease points/applicantions is still a gimmick.

While that concept would marginally improve odds it would be a very minor improvement at best. There aren't enough tags to actually draw to actually cut down on the number of applicants in subsequent categories. By that system anyone with a lick of sense would just out the oil tags as their top priority. There are only roughly 100 total oil tags so that would really not improve oil odds at all and only remove about 100 people from the deer/elk draws.

Bingo. That's why having applicants acquire points across the board doesn't work. Because, whether they apply for 1 category (with points in 9) or 9 categories at once there aren't enough tags to cut down the number permits to points ratio.

The exponential growth in points either way is enough to diminish odds across the board.