how to fix WA. OIL draw system

[argali]

thanks for the responses , I'm sitting in the losers' lounge with 18 pts,when I hear about the guy w/22pts not getting drawn I feel better ? not really. Then  u hear of someone w/ 10 pts  or 3pts getting drawn just doesn't seem right but, thats life!

[X-Force]

There is no fix.  There isn't as many tags as there is demand.  The only thing you can do is increase tags or reduce applicants.

My proposal in the next 3 year cycle will be to select if you want to apply for an OIL species or Deer/Elk as Idaho does.  This would reduce the applicants in all areas but would also reduce revenue.  The individual tag application fees would need to be raised to offset this but overall, a person would spend the same on their application.  This way the state will consider it.  You will then be forced to apply for the tag/species you most covet.  Once you fill that tag, you can apply your points to other species, retaining your points of course. 

The only question is whether you can accumulate points on a species while applying for another.  Not sure about that yet.  Also, can you apply for all 3 OIL species or are you limited to one?  This will likely depend on what the statistic look like but I believe selecting only one you really want will significantly improve your odds, likely over double.

This makes sense! Hopefully WDFW will listen.

[huntnphool]

There is no fix. Sure there is, $$$$$$$$

My proposal in the next 3 year cycle will be to select if you want to apply for an OIL species or Deer/Elk as Idaho does.  This would reduce the applicants in all areas but would also reduce revenue....  The individual tag application fees would need to be raised to offset this but overall, a person would spend the same on their application.  This way the state will consider it.  You will then be forced to apply for the tag/species you most covet.  Once you fill that tag, you can apply your points to other species, retaining your points of course.

 There it is folks, WDFW management in a bold nutshell!

 No changes to anything unless it translates to revenue for the state, outdoorsman, hunters, fisherman and wildlife be damned!

 Absolutely pathetic that the state will not consider anything without the prerequisite of revenue, appalling actually.

[idahohuntr]

I think the most painless way to increase odds is to reduce choices.  I would support just about any proposal that limited applications, Idaho would be a perfect model (choose one oil, or only deer/elk, and only 1 category for deer/elk - this would have a profound effect on antlerless draw odds!).

If folks were allowed to buy points in all categories though, I think it would minimize reductions in revenue for wdfw and be more supportable.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

[idahohuntr]

There is no fix. Sure there is, $$$$$$$$

My proposal in the next 3 year cycle will be to select if you want to apply for an OIL species or Deer/Elk as Idaho does.  This would reduce the applicants in all areas but would also reduce revenue....  The individual tag application fees would need to be raised to offset this but overall, a person would spend the same on their application.  This way the state will consider it.  You will then be forced to apply for the tag/species you most covet.  Once you fill that tag, you can apply your points to other species, retaining your points of course.

 There it is folks, WDFW management in a bold nutshell!

 No changes to anything unless it translates to revenue for the state, outdoorsman, hunters, fisherman and wildlife be damned!

I agree...revenue reduction should not be a factor if sportsmen support changes to the draw system.  I bet we could cut the entire app fee revenue from the budget and sportsmen would never notice a thing...anybody know where the first 850k could come from?

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

[Bushcraft]

How do you fix the OIL draw system?

Easy.

If 99% of the people that do nothing but bitch and whine about the perceived unfairness of the auction/raffle/permit draw system(s) simply got off their backsides and contributed meaningfully in terms of time, energy and money to the conservation of WA's OIL species populations, we'd rapidly find a solution set that would dramatically increase some or all of the OIL species.

Take wild sheep for example, there could very easily be thousands more wild sheep in this state.  Everyone wants a OIL crack at a nice ram, but when it comes down to it there are just a few handfuls of non-GO people that are putting in the effort.

So, in summary....Stop bitching!  Get involved!

[Bullkllr]

There is no fix.  There isn't as many tags as there is demand.  The only thing you can do is increase tags or reduce applicants.

My proposal in the next 3 year cycle will be to select if you want to apply for an OIL species or Deer/Elk as Idaho does.  This would reduce the applicants in all areas but would also reduce revenue.  The individual tag application fees would need to be raised to offset this but overall, a person would spend the same on their application.  This way the state will consider it.  You will then be forced to apply for the tag/species you most covet.  Once you fill that tag, you can apply your points to other species, retaining your points of course. 

The only question is whether you can accumulate points on a species while applying for another.  Not sure about that yet.  Also, can you apply for all 3 OIL species or are you limited to one?  This will likely depend on what the statistic look like but I believe selecting only one you really want will significantly improve your odds, likely over double.

This makes sense! Hopefully WDFW will listen.

In my opinion the system is "fair". The problem with the OILs is that the app fee is cheap enough so anyone with an interest has an incentive to throw in for the low odds of getting drawn. This has created a large number of long-term appliers with 20+ points (myself included) who still have very low odds of being drawn because of the sheer number of apps vs tags. With the management paradigm, I think the state likes the status quo.

I guess the issue I have is the "end game" with the current system. It doesn't bother me much personally to be sitting on 20 points, but I'm sure down the road we'll be seeing people with 50/60 points who still can't get drawn. Maybe it is time to consider a "fix" such as this.

[X-Force]

There is no fix. Sure there is, $$$$$$$$

My proposal in the next 3 year cycle will be to select if you want to apply for an OIL species or Deer/Elk as Idaho does.  This would reduce the applicants in all areas but would also reduce revenue....  The individual tag application fees would need to be raised to offset this but overall, a person would spend the same on their application.  This way the state will consider it.  You will then be forced to apply for the tag/species you most covet.  Once you fill that tag, you can apply your points to other species, retaining your points of course.

 There it is folks, WDFW management in a bold nutshell!

 No changes to anything unless it translates to revenue for the state, outdoorsman, hunters, fisherman and wildlife be damned!

 Absolutely pathetic that the state will not consider anything without the prerequisite of revenue, appalling actually.

I agree with you but I've estimated that WDFW had a gross of roughly $700,000 in special permit fees in 2009 and last year their gross was over $2.5 million so money will be an issue.

[huntnphool]

 One thing I am dead set against is setting a portion of the tags aside for only the highest point holders.

 Our system is not "the bees knees" but IMO it's one of the best systems out there, allowing everyone, even those just starting out, a decent chance of drawing, weighted toward the top holders without allocation. With allocation comes politics, favors, corruption, and I'm completely against any change that allows anyone within the state to manipulate the outcome!

[NRA4LIFE]

I know I haven't been the luckiest in the world with the draw (except this year  ) but I wouldn't change a thing at this point.

[X-Force]

One thing I am dead set against is setting a portion of the tags aside for only the highest point holders.

 Our system is not "the bees knees" but IMO it's one of the best systems out there, allowing everyone, even those just starting out, a decent chance of drawing, weighted toward the top holders without allocation. With allocation comes politics, favors, corruption, and I'm completely against any change that allows anyone within the state to manipulate the outcome!

Amen to that!

[Magnum_Willys]

One thing I am dead set against is setting a portion of the tags aside for only the highest point holders.

 Our system is not "the bees knees" but IMO it's one of the best systems out there, allowing everyone, even those just starting out, a decent chance of drawing, weighted toward the top holders without allocation. With allocation comes politics, favors, corruption, and I'm completely against any change that allows anyone within the state to manipulate the outcome!

   and I have 15 points across the board.  Give everyone a chance. Hate Colorado where you have zero chance for 15 years til you reach draw threshold except with pointcreep you never get there - perpetual loser with zero chance except to pay.

[NRA4LIFE]

  Willy, You hit the nail on the head.  I now have 24 elk points in CO.  I know everyone will think I'm crazy for that (yeah flame on), but when I started applying you needed 8 points to draw this area.  Guess what, now you need 26.  27 next year, 28 the next year, yada yada yada.

[BULLBLASTER]

Go back to pre 2009 draw system with the addition of the either deer/elk or one oil species app per year.

[benhuntin]

Now put yourself in the shoes of a 12 year old first time applicant. Basically no chance to draw and no way to catch up. Give new hunters a chance and quit complaining. This is as fair as possible with as many people that we have. Limit the options or maybe only allow deer/elk or oils like Idaho. I have plenty of points and don't draw either.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk