how to fix WA. OIL draw system

[RC3]

Yeah, I was kinda thinking that was his point.  I wouldn't put in but for just one if I had to pay up front either, thus increasing draw odds.

[elkaholic123]

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

Turns into a rich mans game

Use a credit card 

[lhrbull]

all the tag money up front like Wyoming and increase the cost of your preference point or bonus point that would lower the number of casual applicants then also limiting the oil applications to one species per year

[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.

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.

It actually gets pretty technical.  There is a whole slideshow on it that I have somewhere.  There are a lot of max or high number of point holders.  Right now you are competing for 100% of the tags against a lot of people that don't have max points.  By keeping 1/3rd or whatever for only the top point holders you are pooling all the guys with the most points together to compete for a smaller pool of tags.  You might get it to a point where it's about the same odds as it is now but there are tradeoffs.  That and it would be a big change for not much of a percentage difference.  They were not willing to guarantee tags to max point holders like some other states do.

The fronting of the money is out of the question.  We should not talk about that as it's not viable. 

Those of you that want to hunt Dayton elk, Entiat deer, 49 degree moose, and goats should be all for my proposal.  I would not be competing with you for those tags anymore.  I'd be putting in for sheep which I most covet.  It's cheap so I'll take a chance at the elk tag as the system is currently set up but that I really don't care for as much as most other people, but I'd be ok with the elk/deer/moose/goat tag if I had a cheap chance to get it like I currently do.  That lowers the odds for those of you that really want those other tags I'm applying for though.  And in the future if I want that tag I can then apply once I've filled my sheep tag.  It's really the only viable way I've found to increase draw odds dramatically.

[crabcreekhunter]

There is no easy way to fix it or even fix it at all.  Two many people and too few tags.  As it is its a lottery, and lotteries are luck.  This system everyone has a chance which is "fair", some people seem to be luckier than others.  So be it.  Been putting in for 20 years and have drawn one quality deer tag and one cow tag this year.  Im not complaining, everyone wont be happy, if yall dont realize its a lottery and you arent entitled to a tag no matter how many years you apply you wont be happy with any system in this state.  With any changes to the system there will be trade offs and be careful what you wish for.

[splitshot]

   the main problem is we have too many people.   50 years ago u could shoot a branched bull every year.   more people we have the less opportunity.  mike w

[Gringo31]

More people should mean more $ which should mean better management.

Should....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[stew pidasso]

My thought is let us do what we want with our pts. Keep all permit categories for the revenue. But allow me to combine my deer, elk, ect. To whatever categories I want, like an oil category or quality. I figure within a few years there would be a lot less pts in the system.
Example.
I have 20 pts in q deer. 20 pts in q bull. 4 pts in antlerless cow. 9 in bull elk. 7 in buck deer. I really want to hunt my q elk so I add all of them to my submission in q elk which would be 60 pts. I may or may not get drawn. But if I did there would be a lot less pts in the system the next year. I know the number of applicants stays relatively the same but you could up your chances with names in the hat.

[Wea300mag]

As stated by many before, this state only understands "REVENUE", period! So it will be hard to improve on the current system. More critters would help, but with the introduction of wolves and now griz, our situation will only get worse.

Since I will have 22 points in 5 different categories next year, I would like to see some changes. Why not reprogram the computer to cube (instead of square) the points for everyone with 20 or above? That would make me happy

[huntnphool]

 Just to clarify, I'm not opposed to Popes research and proposal, I was amply pointing out that ridiculous stance of WDFW.

[opdinkslayer]

There is no easy way to fix it or even fix it at all.  Two many people and too few tags.  As it is its a lottery, and lotteries are luck.  This system everyone has a chance which is "fair", some people seem to be luckier than others.  So be it.  Been putting in for 20 years and have drawn one quality deer tag and one cow tag this year.  Im not complaining, everyone wont be happy, if yall dont realize its a lottery and you arent entitled to a tag no matter how many years you apply you wont be happy with any system in this state.  With any changes to the system there will be trade offs and be careful what you wish for.

  there is no fix to satisfy everyone's pursuit of the "very limited" tags they covet. It's a weighted lottery and we have two choices, play or don't.

[MtnMuley]

There is no easy way to fix it or even fix it at all.  Two many people and too few tags.  As it is its a lottery, and lotteries are luck.  This system everyone has a chance which is "fair", some people seem to be luckier than others.  So be it.  Been putting in for 20 years and have drawn one quality deer tag and one cow tag this year.  Im not complaining, everyone wont be happy, if yall dont realize its a lottery and you arent entitled to a tag no matter how many years you apply you wont be happy with any system in this state.  With any changes to the system there will be trade offs and be careful what you wish for.

 Best post yet. I've never complained as I've watched most of my point categories grow and grow over the years. I'm not a gambler, so the more I acquire the better.

[WAcoueshunter]

 

I think our system works about as well as it can under the circumstances.  Any change in our system (or any system, for that matter) will create winners and losers, and some group will think it's unfair. 

[Antlershed]

Shawn, have you ran the numbers to see what would happen to the odds of you allowed people to apply for deer/elk and the OIL's but limited the number of choices on a persons application? I would think you would still sell the same number of applications, which means you wouldn't need a fee increase (which I'm sure a lot of people won't be a fan of), but you would still be reducing the number of applicants in a sense (not to the degree of your plan, however). Just throwing it out there to see if you looked at this as an option. I'm not sure what the correct answer is.

[trophyhunt]

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.

I think your proposal is the best way to improve odds, and it will improve them!  You can also make the state happy by letting people buy their ghost points for the species that they can't draw for, keep their points going and money flowing. Are you going to propose this to fish and game soon?? Bryon had a good idea for you, let's get signatures to support your idea.  Maybe run a poll first to see where the majority stand?  I think it's a no brainier, you choose oil draw or deer/elk, and still be able to buy your ghost points.  I bet the odds would greatly increase.