how to fix WA. OIL draw system

[Falcon]

Thanks Bob.   With max points I can only dream😁

[Bob33]

Thanks Bob.   With max points I can only dream😁

[popeshawnpaul]

In Idaho, where you must pick your OIL or deer/elk, the percentages of where apply are interesting.  The percentages include residents and non-residents.  How would WA differ if we adopted a different system?  How would you expect to see our percentages be different?

They break down as follows:

Elk - 52.6%
Deer - 30.3%
Moose - 6.4%
Rocky Sheep - 5.7%
Cali Bighorns - 2.1%
Goat - 2.8%

[trophyhunt]

In Idaho, where you must pick your OIL or deer/elk, the percentages of where apply are interesting.  The percentages include residents and non-residents.  How would WA differ if we adopted a different system?  How would you expect to see our percentages be different?

They break down as follows:

Elk - 52.6%
Deer - 30.3%
Moose - 6.4%
Rocky Sheep - 5.7%
Cali Bighorns - 2.1%
Goat - 2.8%

In my mind it would be better odds.

[popeshawnpaul]

In Idaho, where you must pick your OIL or deer/elk, the percentages of where apply are interesting.  The percentages include residents and non-residents.  How would WA differ if we adopted a different system?  How would you expect to see our percentages be different?

They break down as follows:

Elk - 52.6%
Deer - 30.3%
Moose - 6.4%
Rocky Sheep - 5.7%
Cali Bighorns - 2.1%
Goat - 2.8%

In WA you are not restricted to Deer/Elk/OIL.  Our percentage of where people apply are difficult to calculate.  Here is our breakdown if you take the total applications for that species divided by the total applicants for all 5 categories.  For this number, antlerless, bull/buck, >65, disabled, youth, quality, and conflict are all put together like they were for the Idaho percentages above.

Elk - 36.6% (63,994 applications)
Deer - 27.8% (48,557 applications)
Moose - 16.7% (29179 applications)
Rocky Sheep - 0%
Cali Bighorns - 10.4% (18,111 applications)
Goat - 8.6% (15,020 applications)

The problem with the above numbers are people can apply accross the board to any species they want.  In Idaho, about 5% of the applicants apply for sheep.  In WA, we can only say that of all the applications received for all species, 10% are sheep.  We would need further data to indicate how many unique applicants applied for sheep, for example.

IF, and it's a big assumption, our applicants chose to apply similarly when constricted as they do in Idaho, your percentage of drawing a tag would go up significantly.  How signifcantly will depend on how many apply for all 5, how many apply for just deer/elk, and how many apply for just OIL.  If we knew those numbers, we could get a good estimate on the final numbers.

Again, I'm not saying this is something that needs to be adopted.  I'm just running the numbers so we have a viable basis to estimate what the draw odds will be with our current system and under a modified Idaho type system utilizing our current points we have all paid in and accumulated.  I'm more interested in figuring out the numbers than broad summary responses, "I don't like it" or "cool".

[trophyhunt]

I've been a fan of your thoughts on this and I truly believe everyone's odds would go up if implemented.  Like I have said before, I bet 75% of those who apply for oil tags would drop out and only apply for points, that's a large number of apps leaving the pool.  Of course those numbers would be impossible to calculate till the change. 

[stw]

Its kinda funny that people want to change the oil draw or the hole draw it's self. A month or so ago people on here wanted to go to a all draw for mule deer . Can you imagine the out come of that when people could not hunt mule deer .

[trophyhunt]

Our thoughts are not to change the entire system, just an idea to improve draw odds for oil tags, nothing else. 

[huntnphool]

Our thoughts are not to change the entire system, just an idea to improve draw odds for oil tags, nothing else.

 $250-$500 per application would have the same result.

I bet 75% of those who apply for oil tags would drop out and only apply for points, that's a large number of apps leaving the pool.

[trophyhunt]

Our thoughts are not to change the entire system, just an idea to improve draw odds for oil tags, nothing else.

 $250-$500 per application would have the same result.

I bet 75% of those who apply for oil tags would drop out and only apply for points, that's a large number of apps leaving the pool.

I agree, but then the state would lose lots of money in app fee's from people not picking up just points.  Pope's way would satisfy the state and increase the odds.  But I agree that option would definitely make sense.

[bobcat]

I'm pretty sure this has already been stated multiple times, but to increase odds for some, you have to decrease odds for others.

It's impossible to increase EVERYONE'S odds. So no matter what, if changes are made, some will see it as being unfair.

Which is why the best thing to do is leave it alone. I don't like the idea of changing the rules in the middle of the game.

[blackveltbowhunter]

Typically I agree with your take on the draw odds Bobcat, but I disagree here. The rules changed midstream for many of us in 2010, with the implementation of the category system. If odds can be improved for the user group bringing the issues forward without significant monetary impact, I think the department would take a look at it.

That said I agree it is impossible to improve odds across the board. Only adjust them to cater to the specific user group bringing the issues up.

I myself like the idea of picking your pot. I like options, but have no problem making a choice and sticking with it.

[Bob33]

Typically I agree with your take on the draw odds Bobcat, but I disagree here. The rules changed midstream for many of us in 2010, with the implementation of the category system. If odds can be improved for the user group bringing the issues forward without significant monetary impact, I think the department would take a look at it.

That said I agree it is impossible to improve odds across the board. Only adjust them to cater to the specific user group bringing the issues up.

I myself like the idea of picking your pot. I like options, but have no problem making a choice and sticking with it.

The game did change in 2010, and it caused havoc and quite a few disgruntled hunters. It was sold as being supported by hunters, but the obvious primary objective was to increase revenue.

Before 2010, individuals were allowed to apply for all species: OIL, and all others. Some hunters started accumulating points for multiple species as early as 1996. A proposal that would require applicants to choose would essentially disenfranchise points for some of the species that hunters were accumulating them for. It would increase draw odds for the OIL species, but would also make the accumulated points for the other species essentially worthless.

[trophyhunt]

Your points in the other categories wouldn't be useless, you keep applying for the points if you chose to go for a oil tag. You can just switch back and fourth certain years if you feel like it, not losing your points. Once I draw out of my quality elk points, I could focus strictly on sheep permits until my elk gets back up to where I have a better chance.  Not that I personally have a chance  .  The odds for those that chose to apply in the oil draws instead of the deer/elk draws, would go up quite a bit.  You just would be ghost pointing your deer/elk that year.  Most people will stick with putting in for deer/elk permits, that's why your odds would go up.

[WAcoueshunter]

What I don't like about it is making people choose between OIL or deer/elk.  I don't think it's fair that someone should have to give up their OIL hopes so a single species guy can have better goat odds. 

If we just wanted to change OIL, I could support being able to accumulate your points into one species.  As has been hashed out at length, going from three species to one doesn't affect your overall draw odds.  Same number of total tags, same number of total applicants.  But what if you could take your 20 moose points (400 names in the hat) and 20 goat points (400 names in the hat), and apply those in the sheep draw with your 20 sheep points, giving you 1200 total names in the hat for sheep.  You shouldn't get to square them, just 400 + 400 + 400.  Or, you could stay in all three draws, or choose two of the three.  You choose how to use your OIL points.  Revenue stays the same; guys that are hell bent on a single species are more likely to draw; guys with points in all three still get to use them; guys that have already drawn OIL will have fewer total points and lower odds (which seems fair), etc.