A better point system - no points

[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. 

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.   

Yeah, just looked at Idaho's site. Out of 112 moose hunts available to apply for (not individual tags but hunt numbers) 21 of those hunts had single digit draw odds and of those 16 of them were 5% or better success for drawing. If your a resident there it's not a matter of wondering if you'll get to hunt them someday, just a matter of what year you hit the tag. 91 hunts where a chance of drawing is 10% or greater. Anybody have WA numbers to compare to that?

[bobcat]

Overall, Washington's moose tag odds are about 0.6%. Or 1 in 150.

[Bob33]

Overall, Washington's moose tag odds are about 0.6%. Or 1 in 150.

The odds are much worse for applicants with low point totals. If you really want to hunt moose in your lifetime, you shouldn't count on getting drawn in Washington.

[Brushbuster]

Are those the stats from this year? If so, I feel special in an unlucky sort of way. I'm one of the 8 people with 22 points that didn't draw. It is nice to see the lions share of the tags go to people with the most points.

[Bob33]

Are those the stats from this year? If so, I feel special in an unlucky sort of way. I'm one of the 8 people with 22 points that didn't draw. It is nice to see the lions share of the tags go to people with the most points.

They are from 2016.

[bearpaw]

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.

I'm sure there would be.  But, with the hunter recruitment problems, it probably is ultimately unhelpful to WDFW to have an entire generation of hunters who have even worse odds of drawing a permit.

Lots of new hunters get into the points game each year. There were 3,083 applicants for an "any moose" permit in 2016 with one point, up from 1,941 the year before. The more disgruntled people are those at the upper ends of the point totals who haven't been drawn, and while their odds aren't great they're better than if there is only one pool of applicants.

I much prefer Idaho's system! Having said that I also understand that Washington is stuck with a points system, too many hunters have too big of investment, some hunters have bought ghost points rather than apply, so it's pretty hard to take that away. I do think WDFW could phase in an alternate system if they wanted to give us options. But I'm not sure WDFW would want to change it, they are bringing in a lot of money with people applying for all these different draw options. 

[huntnphool]

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.

I'm sure there would be.  But, with the hunter recruitment problems, it probably is ultimately unhelpful to WDFW to have an entire generation of hunters who have even worse odds of drawing a permit.

Lots of new hunters get into the points game each year. There were 3,083 applicants for an "any moose" permit in 2016 with one point, up from 1,941 the year before. The more disgruntled people are those at the upper ends of the point totals who haven't been drawn, and while their odds aren't great they're better than if there is only one pool of applicants.

I much prefer Idaho's system! Having said that I also understand that Washington is stuck with a points system, too many hunters have too big of investment, some hunters have bought ghost points rather than apply, so it's pretty hard to take that away. I do think WDFW could phase in an alternate system if they wanted to give us options. But I'm not sure WDFW would want to change it, they are bringing in a lot of money with people applying for all these different draw options. 

 If they did something like I posted, they would retain permit application fees, the point system would be the only part phased out.

[RC3]

Make the application fee $50 and I bet you would have better odds and they would still get their money.

[huntnphool]

Make the application fee $50 and I bet you would have better odds and they would still get their money.

 That does nothing to address the topic.

[BENCHLEG]

This is how it should go 75% to the highest point holders 25% for others if you draw you are out of the draw for 2 years ... they screwed us back when they made everyone equal and didn't make us choose our point options . If you want a cow that's your shot if you want a buck that's your shot etc etc. pick your choice and roll with it they suckered the majority into thinking this was a good thing now it is biting everyone in the butt. OiL'S should be front the money 75% of the tags if you front the money 25% if you don't   And a cap on non residents follow other states like 3% max to non residents. If they do that it will be better I have other ideas but they don't want logical they want $$$$$ figure it out people...

[Odell]

75/25 would be my preference too. You still have a chance and the guys that have been in forever and are getting too old might draw before they die. I would also be in favor of a system that made people who drew sit out 3 years or so as well. On quality hunts.

[BENCHLEG]

Odell , like the old days but if you sit out you can buy points  for that hunt but not be in the pool. It will help the bleeding..

[Stein]

This is how it should go 75% to the highest point holders 25% for others if you draw you are out of the draw for 2 years ... they screwed us back when they made everyone equal and didn't make us choose our point options . If you want a cow that's your shot if you want a buck that's your shot etc etc. pick your choice and roll with it they suckered the majority into thinking this was a good thing now it is biting everyone in the butt. OiL'S should be front the money 75% of the tags if you front the money 25% if you don't   And a cap on non residents follow other states like 3% max to non residents. If they do that it will be better I have other ideas but they don't want logical they want $$$$$ figure it out people...

Wouldn't matter unless you happen to have max or near max.  Look at the above stats, there are a couple thousand people with 15+ points.  It would take several lifetimes to clear those out.

[Jimmy33]

I have had lengthy email discussions on these topics with WDFW officials and there doesn't seem to be any movement. I would suggest flooding them with official proposals about this subject. If you do it in an official way, they have to provide official answers. I have actually had them call me to ask me not to send my requests forward due to the large amount of work it would create. Follow this link http://wdfw.wa.gov/about/regulations/how_to_participate.html to see how to send in official rule making changes. I am so irritated by our ridiculous system that I would be willing to do just about anything else. I love Idaho's system and think it is by far the best option. I would be willing to drop all of my points, pretty much 14 in everything (even my sheep points), to go to Idaho's system. Please get involved and flood their system with your ideas. They are certainly paying no attention to just a few of us...

[idahohuntr]

I have had lengthy email discussions on these topics with WDFW officials and there doesn't seem to be any movement. I would suggest flooding them with official proposals about this subject. If you do it in an official way, they have to provide official answers. I have actually had them call me to ask me not to send my requests forward due to the large amount of work it would create. Follow this link http://wdfw.wa.gov/about/regulations/how_to_participate.html to see how to send in official rule making changes. I am so irritated by our ridiculous system that I would be willing to do just about anything else. I love Idaho's system and think it is by far the best option. I would be willing to drop all of my points, pretty much 14 in everything (even my sheep points), to go to Idaho's system. Please get involved and flood their system with your ideas. They are certainly paying no attention to just a few of us...

If folks want a change, I think you have to drop the idea of providing specific suggestions/tweaks/changes to modify the point system.  There has to be some consensus/strong support for an overall objective...what are you trying to change or improve?  With draws I think you could key in on 3 different objectives:

1. Increase draw odds for everyone
2. Maximize application opportunity
3. Reward top point holders

Obviously you can blend and mix/match all 3 of these objectives, but if you select (and get broad support) for just one of these objectives, then I think you can start to have serious discussion about how to best achieve the objective.

Right now, WDFW is largely in category 2 - maximize application opportunity.  We can all put in multiple choices for dozens of categories. 

If you want to focus on increasing odds of drawing any one tag, then eliminating a points system or using other ways to limit applicants (select a species, front fees, increase fees, 1 choice per species, 1 category per species etc.) would be potential tools.

If you believe the top point holders should get increased draw odds (which would mean significantly reducing everyone else's odds) then things like preference point systems or allocating a portion of tags to top point holders are mechanisms to achieve this goal. 

Bottom line - there are no free lunches in allocating a limited resource.  But if folks seriously want to change a point system they first need to convince WDFW decision makers that sportsman broadly support a different overarching objective than the current model of maximizing application opportunity.