Should Quality Buck & Bull tags go OIL?

[idahohuntr]

If I could swear on this site I'd say F no to this question!  5 year waiting period sounds great.

 I agree with the f-no, but what good would a 5 year wait do? For a unit with 10 tags available, it would decrease the pool by 50 applicants. Will people seriously feel better about this system if 50 less applicants were reduced from a pool that on average has 1500?

 For units with 1 tag, will reducing the applicants by 5 really make you feel better about your odds?

 IMO, we need a system that dumps the points!

If we dumped points do they hold a value. Are they our points or the states.  Just curious. Cost of playing the game or should we get reimbursed.

My view...points are not real property.  If the state decides to change how limited resources are allocated to the public, that is within their authority...so no, I would think there would be no reimbursement required to comply with any law.  Legal issues aside, I still don't think we should get reimbursed.  I "use" my points every year to increase my odds of drawing...so far it hasn't worked out!     But, I have like 81x the chance of drawing a quality elk tag than the guy who put in for the first time this year.

WDFW advertises that "Building special permit points gives applicants a better chance in the random drawings." For that service, they charge a fee.

Taking away points eliminates the benefit accrued by those who paid the fee over a series of years.

I believe that legal actions would ensue.

It is an interesting consideration...are there any examples of litigation stemming from changes to how tags are drawn?  I'm sure someone could sue, but I don't think they stand a chance of being successful.  The only gray area in my mind would be people who only purchased ghost points, having never applied for a permit.  If you ever applied for an actual hunt, you have gotten "use" out of your points. I suspect there are very few people who have only purchased points and never applied - those folks perhaps could be eligible for a small refund if the state wanted to be really generous...but I would advise against even doing that. 

[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.

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.

[ctwiggs1]

Here's an idea OIL are really difficult. It could go similar to Wyoming, Make it that you have to buy the tag to submit for a permit, or if you just want to put in for a point bump it to 50.00 but you are not in the draw. Ya it sucks, it does make it a "rich mans" sport. But life isn't fair and if you are truly passionate to draw a OIL you will find a way to fund your tags. If you don't draw you get your money back minus the point fee.

For other than OIL make 50% of the tags available only for people with 10+ points

If the "life isn't fair" rule applies, why would we want to alienate even more people by making hunting even more unaffordable?

[Bob33]

If you ever applied for an actual hunt, you have gotten "use" out of your points.

It's different than a raffle ticket which has no value after not being drawn.

Points not only give you a chance to draw in the year you applied, they improve future odds of drawing as well. Applying and not drawing does not "use" the entire value of the application. It's the future value that would be eliminated if the point system is taken away.

[trophyhunt]

Here's an idea OIL are really difficult. It could go similar to Wyoming, Make it that you have to buy the tag to submit for a permit, or if you just want to put in for a point bump it to 50.00 but you are not in the draw. Ya it sucks, it does make it a "rich mans" sport. But life isn't fair and if you are truly passionate to draw a OIL you will find a way to fund your tags. If you don't draw you get your money back minus the point fee.

For other than OIL make 50% of the tags available only for people with 10+ points

more good ideas that wdfw won't bother with.

[Curly]

Yep.  Face it, nothing will change for the better regarding special permits in this state.

That's why I don't want to spend retirement living in this state.  I can't wait for retirement and spending time in WY or ID.  Until then, I'll have to be a non-resident hunter in those states.

[Bob33]

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.

[Stein]

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.

Bingo.

The state was open about it, they said the #1 reason they did it was to increase revenue for access to private land.  I'm all for that.

The second reason was that people didn't want to blow their elk points on a cow hunt.

Looking at it that way, the system works pretty well.  You just have to ignore the odds and point creep and remember that wasn't the driving force in the change.

[bearpaw]

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!

[Bushcraft]

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!

   Nailed it.

[Roperfive88]

I voted no.  That said, I think they should tweak the special permit draw system to increase the odds for people that habitually put in for one particular area.  Take a guy who REALLY wants to hunt a particular GMU and has religiously been putting in for 15-20 years and hoping and praying he'll one day get drawn.  He's put in his dues over the years scouting it and knows the area like the back of his hand.  I think he should get a better crack at it than some knucklehead with the same points who throws a dart at the game regs every year and randomly chooses where he'd like to hunt.

Like 10% of the tags go to the top 10% of point holders?  Other states do that for OILs don't they?

Like that will help. 14 tags in a unit that 1400 people put in for. That's 1.4 tags go to 140 does that really look like a benefit. Can't change the problem of to many people not enough animals. Most of the units that are being complained about are this kind of pool.

[bearpaw]

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

[Gringo31]

Dumb idea.  I say absolutely not.

IMO, we need a system that dumps the points!

I think there are some draw that do this.  Archery Observatory is an example.  130 tags given where everyone drawn thinks they've cut a fat hog and then have single digit success rates.  It "dumps" points....

That being said, predators, poaching and "other" things out there remove more opportunity than any permit process/program we have....   

[Bob33]

16,874 and 22. That’s the number of applications and the number of permits issued for a ram sheep in 2016.

Simple math indicates that is one permit for every 767 applications. Cut the number of applications 90%, and overall odds improve to 1 in 77. When that happens, 76 of 77 applications won’t be drawn. Who do you blame then?

[huntnphool]

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.