Bighorn sheep increase to apply

[luvmystang67]

From a practical standpoint, I really like the system suggested by Shane.

If you think about it, if you can only enter and accrue points in one OIL species per year, it cuts the competition in essentially thirds for any individual species.  What that means is that the one that matters most to you might actually be drawn by you before you die.  If you do draw, you can move onto the next one.  In a persons lifetime they might draw 1 or 2 of these OIL tags and they might be spaced 10 or 15 years apart.

With the current system the only people who will eventually really stand a chance are those with 20 tags who have never drawn for anything.  It essentially keeps younger people out, you may die without drawing ANYTHING, and when you're at the top of the pack you might draw all 3 at once when your knees are shot at 70 years old.

I can see a reasonable draw cycle with the way shane has proposed looking something like:

Starting at age 20:
Apply for goat for 15 years because I really want to draw it.  At 35 after 15 years applying I finally get drawn.  Awesome, now I move onto the next species and try for sheep.  Even if its 20 years before I draw sheep, if I get that at 55, I'm still able.  If I want to try for moose after that, power to me.

Today it more realistically looks like:
Starting at age 20:
Apply for all 3, starting at bottom of pool.  Average points for draws now are at 15 points per species, I have 1.  In 10 years, average draw will be probably darn close to 25 points and I'll have 10.  My only hope is other people dying, quitting or finally drawing one of the few tags a year.  If I do draw, I'm at best chance to do so at age 60 or 70 when I finally catch up, having wasted years of my life on a prayer.  Its not a sustainable solution.

If you kept the points you have now, but only accrued points in the OIL category you entered in every year, you could at least have hope of drawing the one OIL closest to you before you die.  Maybe even two.  As it is now, I could die without drawing any of them and I'm 29.

[huntnphool]

 It is what it is, either play the game or don't.

 At this point, any change would result in those that have been applying for years, get screwed, maybe some more than others, but screwed none the less. = change won't happen without pissing several off.

 Secondly, any change like suggested above would mean a loss in revenue for the state, unless they put the screws to those that continue to apply by significantly increasing the fees. = change won't happen without pissing several off.

 The only way the state could "thin the herd" and not lose revenue, would be to systematically, over a number of years, increase the cost to apply and increase the tag fee, basically pricing people out until they reach what WDFW feels is a acceptable pool.

 Kind of like boiling the frog, turning up the temp so slowly, over such a long period of time, that people just die off and new hunters never start due to the investment, just like happens in politics.

[Buzz2401]

Our odds are not that much worse then any other state.  To many people with to few animals.  Most will never get a OIL permit no matter what system they go to.

[Ridgerunner]

The system works as its intended guys.  Each year you don't draw,you have additional chances, the state does allocate all the tags and does maximize the money brought in.  When states set up draw systems those are their guidelines.  It's not to make sure everyone gets a chance to hunt that species.  Is it frustrating, heck ya, especially if you don't draw.  But it's like a lottery, someone will pull the tags, you just gotta decide if you want to play or not.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ramslam]

I agree, Ridgerunner.  The system works as intended (maximize revenue and give those who've been applying the longest the best odds).  Using sheep as an example, NOT ONE of those folks with 1-9 points drew a sheep permit last year even though people in those point pools totaled about two thirds of the applicants. 

I'm not in favor of dropping my odds of drawing all but one species to zero in exchange for upping the one remaining species to say 1%.

Anyone have an idea of total Idaho applicants compared to Washington?  I'd be interested in the estimate of how many would go towards deer/elk versus how many would go to each OIL species??   My guess is they have fewer applicants and way more elk permits, deer permits, sheep permits, goat permits and moose permits.  Just a hunch....

[shanevg]

Our odds are not that much worse then any other state.  To many people with to few animals.  Most will never get a OIL permit no matter what system they go to.

Actually the odds are worst than almost any state in the west that has comparable population sizes.  Montana goat odds range from 1:17 to 1:100.  Their goat population is almost identical to WA's yet WA's odds range from 1:400 to 1:4500. 

Sheep odds in OR are in the range of 1:400, WA's are 1:4000. 

Sheep odds in AZ, NV, MT can be as low as 1:20 all the way to 1:4000.  Again, our best odds are 1:4000. 

The only state with truly comparable odds is CA which has a population I believe 5x or 6x greater than WA's.

The system works as its intended guys.  Each year you don't draw,you have additional chances, the state does allocate all the tags and does maximize the money brought in.  When states set up draw systems those are their guidelines.  It's not to make sure everyone gets a chance to hunt that species.  Is it frustrating, heck ya, especially if you don't draw.  But it's like a lottery, someone will pull the tags, you just gotta decide if you want to play or not.

Says the guy who has already drawn 2x OIL permits!   

Honestly though, regardless what mandate the F&G agencies receive, their primary motivation should NOT be revenue maximization.  F&G agencies are government organizations that are entirely in place to help maximize the benefit of our publicly owned natural resource (big game animals in this case) for the public consumption.  I will never let this issue rest when there is a better alternative available that literally improves the odds of EVERYONE IN THE ENTIRE STATE INCLUDING YOUNGER HUNTERS opportunities to draw a future tag. 

What I don't get, is how anyone on here is arguing between the two options below.  The preferred option is obvious and statistically easy to achieve.  (Situations below are using simple math to help illustrate the statistical difference.):

Which would you prefer?
Option A: You have a 1:1000 odds of drawing one of 5 potential tags and also 1:10,000 odds of drawing 2 or more of the 5 available tags.

Option B: You have 1:200 odds of drawing a single tag and no potential of drawing 2 tags. 

I simply cannot see how anyone would prefer 5x worst draw odds simply to gain the statistically insignificant odds of potentially drawing 2 tags.  It makes no sense at all. 

In my opinion, the problem is that most hunters simply don't understand how a change would affect them.  I blame a lot of that on WDFW and how they word surveys (a science in and of itself.)  WDFW would ask: Would you be in support of limiting your application to only one species if it meant you would significantly increase your draw odds?  Unfortunately, most hunters would say no because they don't want to lose the opportunity to apply for whichever they prefer.  If instead they asked: Would you support a change to the draw system that would increase draw odds on average by 5x if it meant eliminating the potential of drawing two tags in the same year?   I believe most hunters would support that option. 

I still think limiting to either 1. Deer/Elk 2. Moose 3. Sheep 4. Goat in a given year is the best option.  I also think allowing hunters to continue to pay to build points in all categories if they choose (while only allowing them to apply for an actual hunt option in a single category) is the best option to continue to build revenue for WDFW and help hunters get over the psychological hurdle of the new system by allowing them to switch from species to species in a given year without getting behind in the point game. 

When I get a chance I'm going to go add up total number of applicants in deer/elk/goat/sheep/moose categories in ID to get a rough idea of how hunters actually distribute themselves to get a more realistic idea of what odds would look like.

[Ridgerunner]

I've been lucky I know, what kills me is when my 8 year old looks up and says I want to go sheep hunting.  I doubt he will get the chance in this state unfortunately.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[idahohuntr]

Idaho 2015 first choice applicants:

Moose 6,498
Sheep 2,530
Goat   830
Total: 9,858

Elk 70,437
Deer   65,282
Pronghorn   25,521
Total:161,240

So... at least 86% of applicants go to the Deer/Elk/Pronghorn draw - not sure what the actual value is because applicants can apply for elk, deer, and pronghorn in the same year.

[BULLBLASTER]

Idaho 2015 first choice applicants:

Moose 6,498
Sheep 2,530
Goat   830
Total: 9,858

Elk 70,437
Deer   65,282
Pronghorn   25,521
Total:161,240

So... at least 86% of applicants go to the Deer/Elk/Pronghorn draw - not sure what the actual value is because applicants can apply for elk, deer, and pronghorn in the same year.

[X-Force]

Interesting because Washington has
Deer - 45,385
Elk - 51,621
Moose - 25,964
Goat - 12,249
Sheep - 16,807

Total Including Turkey and bear - 157,059

I thought Washington had so many more people/hunters etc.?

How many total tags are their per species? and yes I know they will have more.

[KNOPHISH]

Take one of those scenarios then top it off with a percentage of tags to the top points holders. say 25%, 50% would be better 

[bobcat]

Take one of those scenarios then top it off with a percentage of tags to the top points holders. say 25%, 50% would be better 

But that would make it even more impossible for those just getting into hunting to have even the slightest chance of ever drawing a tag. If you look at the points report, you'll see that the people who have less than about 10 points, draw very few tags, in fact almost zero. (talking only moose, goat, and sheep) So the people at the lower end of the points scale are already at a huge disadvantage. I don't see a need to make it worse for them, so they would have even less reason to even bother applying. Honestly what should happen is they need to do away with the point system entirely with the O.I.L. tags.

[notsosneaky]

Take one of those scenarios then top it off with a percentage of tags to the top points holders. say 25%, 50% would be better 

But that would make it even more impossible for those just getting into hunting to have even the slightest chance of ever drawing a tag. If you look at the points report, you'll see that the people who have less than about 10 points, draw very few tags, in fact almost zero. (talking only moose, goat, and sheep) So the people at the lower end of the points scale are already at a huge disadvantage. I don't see a need to make it worse for them, so they would have even less reason to even bother applying. Honestly what should happen is they need to do away with the point system entirely with the O.I.L. tags.

Yup
All lottery, 1 ticket per person per year. Then folks will lose the entitlement mentality of the points system.

[LabChamp]

Take one of those scenarios then top it off with a percentage of tags to the top points holders. say 25%, 50% would be better 

But that would make it even more impossible for those just getting into hunting to have even the slightest chance of ever drawing a tag. If you look at the points report, you'll see that the people who have less than about 10 points, draw very few tags, in fact almost zero. (talking only moose, goat, and sheep) So the people at the lower end of the points scale are already at a huge disadvantage. I don't see a need to make it worse for them, so they would have even less reason to even bother applying. Honestly what should happen is they need to do away with the point system entirely with the O.I.L. tags.

This is laughable. So you want to make sure the new guys get better odds of drawing tags in a point system made to benefit people who have been putting in the longest. At the same time your saying the guys who havent drawn for 10+ years don't need anymore of an advantage? If they didnt need the points advantage, they would have already drawn. So how does that make sense. Seems like you just want everyone on an equal playing field no matter what. Mine as well just drop points all together if that's your point of view.

I totally agree with setting 25% of the tags to the top point holders. They deserve it. Kind of like getting in line for concert tickets. Did you get there early or not? It's always the people at the back of the line that have something to whine about being not fair. It IS fair. People who have been in the draw longer than you have a better chance, that's fair. They spent more time, money, and effort in doing so than someone who just walks up to the front of the line feeling entitled to a tag.

Heck, even with 25% going to the top point holders 75% of the tags still go out randomly. That's about as fair as I could imagine. Points will still have their effect on the remaining 75% but hey it is what it is. You get however many points you've applied for and received in the past. Can't blame someone else for your lack of points. And it's no one's fault that one guy is 65 with 30 points and he's is the same draw as a 16 year old with 1. I'm sorry but the old guy deserves his advantage and by the time the 16 year old is 36, that old guy will be dead or no longer applying. So blame life, blame your neighbor, but most of all blame YOURSELF when you wonder why you haven't drawn a tag. No one is entitled to anything and this is a DRAW shame on you for expecting a tag in a lottery and even more shame on you for being jealous enough to want to change the system to see more fit to YOUR perfect idea of how a draw should be ran.

[Katmai Guy]

   To many people, not enough animals. Leave it alone.