how to fix WA. OIL draw system

[Blcktaildreamer]

I still don't understand how someone can think that just because they have put in for 20 years makes them more entitled to the tag then someone just starting. I think everyone that buys an app. Should be in the hat one time and that's it. I just don't get it I guess. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[popeshawnpaul]

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!

We already ran the numbers on this and it was a joke.  Those in the highest pool had a lower chance than those in the general pool...lol.  This idea is dead and won't be looked at for a long while.  The only viable idea is the one I've been working on where we limit applicants to deer/elk or OIL.  Once I've run the numbers I'm going to make a proposal with fee increases to keep the money the same.  While I like the idea Huntnphool of them eating the loss, I know the chance of success if I don't account for that is zero.  I'm more interested in what the odds will be after the change, how many applicants will be in each species, and how to price it so the money doesn't get them more revenue.  The essential question we can't predict is how many will choose deer/elk and how many will choose an OIL and which one?  I'd imagine goat odds will increase quite a bit...  We may have to look at Idaho's percentages to see what their applicants apply for and estimate what ours will apply for.

[DoubleJ]

Why not split the tags in thirds?  1/3 only for those with 20+ points, 1/3 for those with 10-20 points and 1/3 for <10 points.  Everyone still has a chance and those with 20+ points have better odds since they're only competing with others in their status

[NRA4LIFE]

I do like Idaho's system.  However, they have a LOT more tags available for OIL.  That might preclude it working in WA.

[popeshawnpaul]

Why not split the tags in thirds?  1/3 only for those with 20+ points, 1/3 for those with 10-20 points and 1/3 for <10 points.  Everyone still has a chance and those with 20+ points have better odds since they're only competing with others in their status

It's been looked at over and over by WDFW.  It just doesn't make sense overall.  You pool the highest people together and they are competing against each other so statistically, unless you reserve a large number for the higher point people, they usually have less or not much of an advantage.  Then you offer a lot less permits for the majority of people and will participation/$ drop off...

[RC3]

I like the idea of picking only 1 species and 1 unit, I also like it where 50% is preference points and 50% is random draw and a non-resident cap would be nice.

[bullfisher]

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!

We already ran the numbers on this and it was a joke.  Those in the highest pool had a lower chance than those in the general pool...lol.  This idea is dead and won't be looked at for a long while.  The only viable idea is the one I've been working on where we limit applicants to deer/elk or OIL.  Once I've run the numbers I'm going to make a proposal with fee increases to keep the money the same.  While I like the idea Huntnphool of them eating the loss, I know the chance of success if I don't account for that is zero.  I'm more interested in what the odds will be after the change, how many applicants will be in each species, and how to price it so the money doesn't get them more revenue.  The essential question we can't predict is how many will choose deer/elk and how many will choose an OIL and which one?  I'd imagine goat odds will increase quite a bit...  We may have to look at Idaho's percentages to see what their applicants apply for and estimate what ours will apply for.

How is it that having more points decreases your odds?
The only way to increase odds accross the board is to increase herds, habitat and draw areas. What if our money went to that? Why did we have to invent a raffle system? Those animals could be in the oil tag system regardless of what foundation they "belong" to. True rocky mt bighorn used to be in the oil system but the indians would mow em down as soon as they got big enough and crossed the territory, and thats straight from the biologists mouth! Oil tag problems are deeper then the point system, a system that is fine in my opinion.

[BULLBLASTER]

I like the idea of picking only 1 species and 1 unit, I also like it where 50% is preference points and 50% is random draw and a non-resident cap would be nice.

I don't see nonresidents as being an issue. It is already ridiculously expensive to apply and doesn't seem like nr get many of our tags. Maybe oil since they don't need a license to apply. Is there stats that show how many oil tags go to nr?

[RC3]

I think there are more non-residents than you think that put in for OIL.

[BULLBLASTER]

I think there are more non-residents than you think that put in for OIL.

Could be. I wish Wdfw would publish that. I'd like to see how many actually draw tags if that's the case.

[AlpineMuley]

For the oil tags we should pay the full amount up front.  This would weed out 50%.

[jmscon]

For the oil tags we should pay the full amount up front.  This would weed out 50%.

Turns into a rich mans game

[RC3]

If you can afford to buy the tag if you draw I don't see how it makes it a rich mans game to pay up front.

[jmscon]

If you have to pay for the multiple tags up front instead of just the one you get drawn for, yea it'll cost you

[huntnphool]

If you have to pay for the multiple tags up front instead of just the one you get drawn for, yea it'll cost you

 This is always a interesting discussion, I'm okay with fronting all the tag money but can see that some would be challenged to do this.

 I believe the majority of hunters are in favor of increasing draw odds, but only if changes do not effect them. Limiting the number of applicants, in some form or another, is never going to be a popular choice, but it's likely the only viable option.........assuming you actually believe a change is needed.