Should Quality Buck & Bull tags go OIL?

[Bob33]

Here’s why I don’t expect WDFW to make any changes. The scheme they implemented in 2010 resulted in a significant increase in special permit applications, and thus revenue. For example, in 2009 there were 36,510 total applications for “Deer”. In 2016 there were 65,310 applications for the various deer categories.

 A system like I proposed slowly eliminates the point system while maintaining the states thirst for revenue.

A change that phases out points could work, but whatever change is suggested or implemented will almost certainly meet resistance from some parties that will be hard to overcome.

I'm sure other states are questioning their point systems as well. It will be interesting to see which one if any of them drops points first.

[kentrek]

I agree with hunting pool

How about doing Idaho's system for the regular bull and buck permits and then doing a points system with a 5 year wait for the quality permits

Same amount of money, just less people and better odds....i don't see why need to have a blanket style system that covers all the tags

[Jpmiller]

Maybe we can get all the people off the winter range so we can support more animals. Or improve upon habitat and get animals in more places. Or manage predators so we can increase fawn and calf survival rate.

[NRA4LIFE]

I voted no.  However, at my age, any quality D/E tag is OIL for sure.  Quality Elk is almost certainly an OIL for almost anyone now anyways. 

[dreamingbig]

No but they should do away with the point system.  No bonus points and only 1 unit choice per application.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[fish vacuum]

It's a numbers game, you can change the system all you want but no matter what system is used to distribut tags there are only so many animals can be taken in Washington. The only way to truly increase hunter opportunity is to have more game animals available to hunt. As long as we have growing predator numbers and decreasing herds that means fewer animals for hunters regardless of the system used to distribute tags!

Ding ding ding!

[fish vacuum]

One factor that tend to aggravate this is the decline in small game and upland bird hunting in Washington. When I was a youth I did far more duck and pheasant hunting than big game. The declines in those opportunities puts increased emphasis and attention on big game.

Add reduced fishing opportunities to that thought. Reduced fall salmon and winter steelhead fisheries have many of us looking for other ways to fill our time. I've been doing a lot more grouse hunting the last few years and applying for multiseason deer. Just waiting for the state to introduce a new grouse hunting fee. 

[winshooter88]

Increasing the number of tags available isn't the only way to improve draw odds, the other way is to reduce the number of applicants or more precisely the number of applications. If we went from 2-4 choices per application to 1 choice per application then draw odds would improve at least slightly. The GMAC is looking at the points system for the 3rd time in five or six years, and after a ton of research both by members of GMAC and by the WDFW staff what it comes down to is unless you throw out the points system and start over with a system without points then there is no real way to "fix" the current system. Changing it to give the high point holders a large percentage of the tags is just a feel good thing and won't fix anything because there are still way more applicants than there are tags available, and the high point holders already draw a larger portion of available tags anyway. The Washington permit system is strictly a lottery, no matter how many points that you have it still all depends on the luck of the draw. All the points do is get you more chances for you name to be drawn, they in no way guarantee that you will get drawn no matter how many points you have. In fact from what we have found out point creep is very real and after about 8 or 9 years of points your chance of drawing actually drops slightly each year.

[JLS]

Here’s why I don’t expect WDFW to make any changes. The scheme they implemented in 2010 resulted in a significant increase in special permit applications, and thus revenue. For example, in 2009 there were 36,510 total applications for “Deer”. In 2016 there were 65,310 applications for the various deer categories.

And yet in spite of reduced odds the number of special permit applications continues to grow each year. For “Quality Elk” there were 24,391 applications in 2010; by 2016 that number had grown to 29,433, an increase of 20%.

New applicants are attracted to the idea of getting better odds each year, and applicants that have been playing the game for many years are reluctant to quit and throw away their investments.

WDFW has a big budget that requires a lot of money, and they are controlled by green groups, so two issues are probably not negotiable:

1. Predator hunting will not be increased
2. Nothing else will be done that reduces revenue

Unfortunately, there is a lot of truth to this.

[Bullkllr]

It's all a game, and we're the pawns. (sorta)

Until something is done about the multiple categories, the complaining will continue. The problem is not "points"-vs- "no points". The problem is there is nothing to make people pick which hunts they really want. Getting rid of applying for multiple choices in multiple categories would make odds considerably better across the board, but that ain't likely to happen.

I typically apply for "lesser" hunts in the quality category. I drew 3 Quality Elk permits in 12 years. Killed a nice bull each time; not once-in-a-lifetime-bulls- but had great uncrowded hunts and I was more than happy. I've been doing points since then because of little time off in the fall. 

[Jpmiller]

In regards to predator control isn't most of that in our hands? There is a quota for cougar harvest and we can't shoot wolves but there is a year round season on coyotes with no bag limits and an otc bear opportunity statewide. Perhaps we (myself included) should be more proactive in what we can control in the situation.

I bought sayleans book on bear hunting and hope to be putting my first one on the ground this year. Maybe more of us should be successful bear cougar and coyote hunters.

[Jpmiller]

I also remember talking with someone from Wdfw when I was in high school (maybe Bruce Richards?) And hearing that there were lists of habitat improvement projects that needed funding or simply manpower to accomplish. I bet a motivated group of Hunter's could put a dent in some projects and possibly reap a benefit down the road.

I'm certainly not doing my part so don't take this as me looking down my nose at anyone but it seems better than listing all the reasons the system is flawed online.

[idahohuntr]

Until something is done about the multiple categories, the complaining will continue. The problem is not "points"-vs- "no points". The problem is there is nothing to make people pick which hunts they really want. Getting rid of applying for multiple choices in multiple categories would make odds considerably better across the board, but that ain't likely to happen.

The multiple categories and 2-4 choices per category is what really kills things IMO.  High demand, quality permits are always going to be hard to draw...what I think really sucks in this state is how hard it is to draw antlerless or other mediocre permits. 

[buglebrush]

I would strongly support us being able to apply for deer or elk, and not both, yearly and only one OIL choice per year.

YES!  Stein mentioned above that he wishes there would be a way to increase draw odds.  Well, this would help immensely.

[huntnnw]

Start fronting OIL tag fees to apply ! Eliminate a lot of people . Far too many people apply for these tags cause it would be " cool " to hunt one of them . It's cheap and easy now to just put in. Far to many apply with no real desire to hunt them and could care less if they ever draw.