A better point system - no points

[trophyhunt]

I think Idaho is always on the edge of going with the point system, I'm sure the money is very tempting .  I hope they stay the course.

[Falcon]

Like it or not, the system we have will be in place for a long time. To eliminate points, the applicants with existing points would need to be compensated and that's not going to happen.

Not sure why people with points would need to be compensated, they got what they paid for, a chance to be drawn for a permit each year they applied.

Someone with 20 points has better odds of being drawn, because he's paid and applied for 20 years. If the point system is eliminated, his odds would be the same as everyone else. There would be an uproar.


 
Agree with Bob on this one. 

[acrocker]

I don't get it and please tell me if I'm missing something.

The cause of the disgruntled-ness of the newer applicants is the 'point creep' that results from the current system, and the longer odds that any newcomer has in the drawing pool. I'm sorry, but didn't every current applicant go through the very same process when they first applied? I mean, anybody starting to try and draw a quality tag right now faces long odds, but 20 years from now they'll be the beneficiary of the 'point creep' issue and have the odds more (relatively speaking) in their favor... Why is it that we constantly have to cater to the 'instant gratification' need of people in society and why can't we just accept that those that came before us, who have been applying for years and years (and maybe decades) should be afforded some kind of preference over some Johnny-come-lately who just decided to draw a tag this year. I mean, Johnny isn't excluded, by any means, but he has a statistically lower chance of drawing than someone who had been diligently trying for 20 years. Again - if Johnny is serious about wanting to draw that covereted tag, then 20 years of diligently applying from now he will be the one in the catbird seat and the new guys will have to start earning their points - it always comes around, if you care to stay on the train.

Newcomers join the ranks every year, and I am absolutely all for having new hunters in our ranks - but those of us that have been working on getting that coveted tag for years shold get some kind of leg up in the game over somebody else who just happened to apply this year for the first time ever and for all we know may never even apply for an elk hunt again.

Again, maybe I'm missing something but I really believe that persistence should be awarded, or at least preferred.

[Stein]

No, point creep is a relatively new issue.  The system is set up to clear out the high point holders so that you basically have a good guess at when you will draw.  Tag XYZ usually goes with 9 points, fine, I'll draw it in 9-12 years.

With point creep, you will never draw as that date goes at least one year in the future every year.  Next year it is 10, year after it is 12, then 13, then 15.  You never get any closer to drawing.

With point creep, we are basically idiots for even applying, we should save the money and buy something in another state or another tag as we won't ever draw it.

[shanevg]

Your missing 2 things.
1. The current point system is bad for everyone. The total pool is so watered down that all the high point holders. (Roughly 6-10+ points depending on the tag) are actually seeing their odds DECREASE every year. That includes Mac point holders. Everyone is losing and no one is winning.

2. In your scenario where someone applies for 20 years, his odds will actually be worse 20 years from now then they are for him right now. By that time the pool of max point holders (or close to) will be so top heavy and have so much more of an exponentially large size of the total pool that 20 points will actually have lower statistics than 1 or 2 points has now. There just aren't enough tags to knock enough max point holders out of the pool each year to make up for the new applicants coming in.

[shanevg]

No, point creep is a relatively new issue.  The system is set up to clear out the high point holders so that you basically have a good guess at when you will draw.  Tag XYZ usually goes with 9 points, fine, I'll draw it in 9-12 years.

With point creep, you will never draw as that date goes at least one year in the future every year.  Next year it is 10, year after it is 12, then 13, then 15.  You never get any closer to drawing.

With point creep, we are basically idiots for even applying, we should save the money and buy something in another state or another tag as we won't ever draw it.

That's actually not correct in a bonus point system like WA has. It would be accurate in Preference Point states like CO or WY. (Exactly why I never applied for sheep/moose in WY.)

Point creep is different in preference point states. See my previous post.

[Bob33]

Newcomers join the ranks every year, and I am absolutely all for having new hunters in our ranks - but those of us that have been working on getting that coveted tag for years shold get some kind of leg up in the game over somebody else who just happened to apply this year for the first time ever and for all we know may never even apply for an elk hunt again.

Again, maybe I'm missing something but I really believe that persistence should be awarded, or at least preferred.

Persistence is preferred in a sense. The longer one applies without being drawn, the more points he has. The more points, the better odds of being drawn relative to fewer points. A newcomer with one point has one name in the hat; the person with 20 points has 400 names in the hat: 400 times better odds of being drawn.

A concern is that the person with 20 points will not necessarily have better odds of drawing next year with 21 points. He will have better odds than the person with 20 points, but not necessarily better than he had this year. He will have 441 names in the hat next year, a 10% increase, but all the newcomers that had one point and one name in the hat this year will have two points and four names in the hat next year. The large number of applicants in the lower point totals going from one to four names in the hat (300% increase),or four to nine (125% increase) dilute the pool and can reduce the overall odds of those with high point totals.

[Stein]

No, point creep is a relatively new issue.  The system is set up to clear out the high point holders so that you basically have a good guess at when you will draw.  Tag XYZ usually goes with 9 points, fine, I'll draw it in 9-12 years.

With point creep, you will never draw as that date goes at least one year in the future every year.  Next year it is 10, year after it is 12, then 13, then 15.  You never get any closer to drawing.

With point creep, we are basically idiots for even applying, we should save the money and buy something in another state or another tag as we won't ever draw it.

That's actually not correct in a bonus point system like WA has. It would be accurate in Preference Point states like CO or WY. (Exactly why I never applied for sheep/moose in WY.)

Point creep is different in preference point states. See my previous post.


Somewhat different on paper, but not really in practice.  If  you don't clear out max point holders the result is the same.  You buy points but it doesn't really matter.  Either way, you pay your fee and it is a lottery.  You have 1.1% odds with a few more points and I have 1.05%.  Result is neither of us draw - ever.

It's fun to put in, but guys really get bent out of shape when they collect 20+ points and then look up the odds.

WA could never go preference points because the spigot would shut off once people understood what is going on.  The pinprick of light at the end of the tunnel keeps us playing.

[EyeTooth]

Regarding people being upset for losing all of the money they have invested in points and wanting to be compensated for them if the WDFW would stop the point system next year, I don’t remember being compensated for not receiving 16 years’ worth of “free” points in each of the new bull, cow, buck, and doe sub-categories, like all of the people that had only been putting in for hard to get quality hunts did when the new sub-categories were forced on us. What would be the difference?
If anyone were to get litigious if the bandage of the current point system were to be quickly removed, they should first have to prove that they didn’t receive any free points in the above transition.
I begged the game department not to give free points across the board, at the very least, without a public comment period and they/he did it anyway.
All of us that had no chance of a quality hunt, due to the fact that we were paying attention to how bad the odds of drawing them were, surely had wild game meat and hunting experiences removed from our tables and lives. Were there any legal problems caused by that?
I don’t blame any hunters or point holders past or present for this new, bad system that we have now. Just WDFW.
There are several things that would need to be considered while making what I would consider to be a good change. (I’m well aware that what I consider to be a good change wouldn’t be considered a good change by everyone else). My opinion is just an opinion. I don’t claim to know all of the considerations needed, but I do think that a good change is doable without costing people any more money than they are spending now. The WDFW would still need money.
The first thing would be to thoroughly research every other no point system that is out there. Then, the next most important thing would be to run real numbers to see what would really be fair and also better for everyone’s overall odds of drawing, not individuals, but everyone’s. In the beginning, some people’s odds would increase and others would decrease. My goal would be to find a fair system, that is the best for the vast majority of people, educate everyone, have a good discussion and public comment period, and go from there. Nothing is perfect, but what we have now isn’t good.
There will always be some people that just can’t seem to draw, no matter what system we have. That is a major bummer, but you can’t base a whole system on avoiding that. Is that my two cents? Maybe three?
Good luck to all of us!
I'll be quiet now.

[boneaddict]

Points are the Devil.   

[shanevg]

Points are the Devil.

[EyeTooth]

Actually, that's what I was trying to say. Change to a No Points system.

[theleo]

If Washington mimicked Idaho I'd start putting in for tags here, as is WDFW gets my money when I buy my fishing license and that's it. People like point systems from the aspect that your odds go up with every point, as opposed to it being completely random. Random isn't always fair but the law of averages works towards your favor every year you put in. If a tag has an 10% success rate at drawing every year in a random draw odds are you'll draw it every once in a 10 year span, but it's still possible you could go 27 years not drawing that tag and hit a lucky streak the last 3 years getting the tag each year. From the bottom looking up I'll pay to roll the dice in Idaho than pay to start climbing the points ladder here that gets an extra 3/4 of a rung added to it each year.

For the OIL tag situation, also follow Idaho in that if you apply for one your limited to OTC tags for all other big game animals. The state would hate it but it'd be great for the guys really wanting those tags. 

[shanevg]

If Washington mimicked Idaho I'd start putting in for tags here, as is WDFW gets my money when I buy my fishing license and that's it. People like point systems from the aspect that your odds go up with every point, as opposed to it being completely random. Random isn't always fair but the law of averages works towards your favor every year you put in. If a tag has an 10% success rate at drawing every year in a random draw odds are you'll draw it every once in a 10 year span, but it's still possible you could go 27 years not drawing that tag and hit a lucky streak the last 3 years getting the tag each year. From the bottom looking up I'll pay to roll the dice in Idaho than pay to start climbing the points ladder here that gets an extra 3/4 of a rung added to it each year.

For the OIL tag situation, also follow Idaho in that if you apply for one your limited to OTC tags for all other big game animals. The state would hate it but it'd be great for the guys really wanting those tags. 

Would love to see WA go to ID system of Pick either A.) Deer/Elk B.) Sheep C.) Moose D.) Goat. 

And we as hunters need to stop giving WDFW the excuse of they won't do do that due to loss of income.  They are a government agency.  Their job is to provide the best hunting opportunities to the citizens of the state, not maximize revenue.   

[Special T]

Has anyone ever done some statiscal comparison?  The likelihood of a person with 1 point, 20, and the chances of winning the small state lotto where you then afford a guided hunt in BC?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk