A better point system - no points

[bobcat]

For better odds we need less applicants. One way to do that is to increase the cost to apply. Let's say quality deer and elk applications were $75 each. That could significantly reduce the number of applicants and improve draw odds. But most people won't be in favor of that. Other than increasing the cost I really don't think there's a way to improve odds for the quality hunts. Now, if they did away with the point system that would eventually increase the odds of new hunters but it certainly wouldn't help those who currently have a lot of points built up.

[idahohuntr]

Cost is one way to reduce applicants, but reducing choices would have a similar effect.  1 OIL or Deer/Elk...and 1 or 2 choices per species.  High demand tags would still be tough (but exponentially better odds than exist today); the most dramatic improvement would likely be on antlerless hunts and the mediocre buck and bull hunts. 

[Gringo31]

Cost is one way to reduce applicants, but reducing choices would have a similar effect.  1 OIL or Deer/Elk...and 1 or 2 choices per species.  High demand tags would still be tough (but exponentially better odds than exist today); the most dramatic improvement would likely be on antlerless hunts and the mediocre buck and bull hunts.

So far I think this is all good discussion.  I have a hard time just bumping up the prices.  I hate pay to play, even though I admit it would be effective, I would be against it. 

I don't think that you can say you get "better odds than exist today".  I suppose the real question is would you rather have 1 10% chance or 10 1% chances.  That's what I see happening.  I'm not saying I'm necessarily against it....but don't know that it increases odds.  It would increase odds for your #1 pick......but  makes the odds for "other" pics that you have today.....zero.

[bobcat]

Gringo31- exactly! I don't see anything changing the OVERALL odds in any significant way. The same number of permits going to the same number of applicants equals the same odds. Point system or no point system, there's really no good way to make the odds of drawing better. However I will say I'm all for doing away with the point system.

[Gringo31]

One more thing....


If you were limited to only one pick.  It would keep certain things local.  Guys wouldn't be putting in for units they've never heard of but Entiat, Peaches and Dayton would be hammerd.

[winshooter88]

If you limit it to 1 choice per application instead of 2-4 it would improve overall draw odds, if you do that and make people choose OIL or Bull and Buck it would improve them even more. Entiat, Peaches and Dayton are already hammered so that wouldn't change much.

[ctwiggs1]

The more expensive we make hunting, the quicker our hunting rights disappear.  We need to drive costs down to help new people get into this, not bump them up to discourage more hunters. 

[Gringo31]

I wonder if limiting it to one category would see success rates increase?


I agree with you ctwiggs1.  BUT!  We can't keep encouraging more hunters AND no maximize harvest to tag holders in a sustainable way.  Predators, poachers etc need increased pressure. 

[ctwiggs1]

I totally agree, but that's a separate issue. 

BTW - I just re read your sheep story.  You and I are going to become buds after I draw the raffle and buy you a beer to pick your brain!   

[Gringo31]

 

Apologize for getting side tracked 

[Bullkllr]

I wonder if limiting it to one category would see success rates increase?
 

It may be another topic, but I think that would do more to improve odds than points-vs- no points.

[ScottE]

Maybe I'm missing something but it seems to me points or no points there will still be the same number of people trying for the same number of permits?
    The people who were assigned the lowest random number were awarded the tags, it would have been the same with no points, either you get lucky or you dont.

[huntnphool]

Maybe I'm missing something but it seems to me points or no points there will still be the same number of people trying for the same number of permits?
    The people who were assigned the lowest random number were awarded the tags, it would have been the same with no points, either you get lucky or you dont.

 Like so many that have read this thread, you are missing a big part of the discussion.

[SteelheadTed]

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

Yes, Kentucky did.  See link at the beginning of this thread

[JimmyHoffa]

Maybe I'm missing something but it seems to me points or no points there will still be the same number of people trying for the same number of permits?
    The people who were assigned the lowest random number were awarded the tags, it would have been the same with no points, either you get lucky or you dont.

I don't know about that, but can't really predict/prove that wouldn't be the case.  Would more people apply for Blue Mountain permits if the high roller point holders were back at zero?  It kind of seems to steer people to other permits seeing large numbers of guys with 20-30 points going for one area.  Would the guys with high points still apply for the coveted permits if they didn't have an edge?  And finally, without points, there wouldn't be ghost pointing--so either you are getting more people actively trying for the permit or a complete reduction in applicants.   
I was pretty wrong about predicting early muzzy season after WDFW opened all the new units...I thought people would spread out evenly to all the GMUs with a loyal following staying in the old, but instead the old GMUs seemed abandoned and the new ones were like war zones.