Out of the points game

[bobcat]

If they would at least limit it to 1 choice per category that would improve odds also. Same revenue, same amount of categories so everyone can have all these options they feel they need but just make everyone pick 1 choice.,

Overall it wouldn't make odds better in the category, but yes some permits would probably be a little easier to draw, but others might be harder. Think about it. Same number of applicants for the same number of permits, how does that change the odds?

how would it not makes your odds better? Less applicants = bedder odds. You do the math!

The math, okay. Let's use Quality deer, 971 permits available last year, 24,064 applicants. For odds of 1 in 25.

Change it so each applicant can only apply for 1 hunt instead of 2. The new math- 971 permits, 24,064 applicants. Odds of 1 in 25.

Same, same.

[meatwhack]

That logic would only be valid if everyone were able to put in for every single tag which isn’t the case. For the majority of tags it would increase odds of you limited to 1 choice.

[Stein]

I'm not sure how WDFW reports, are the applicants reported for each permit a sum of first, second and third choices?  If so, the number of applicants would go down if you only have a first choice.

That is where the odds are very hard to calculate, multiple choices for each category of points really muddies up the math.  I believe Gohunt actually has to do millions of computer simulations to get the actual odds instead of a simple formula for states with similar programs.

[Karl Blanchard]

Go take my poll.  This is how I think the system should be restructured to.


https://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,226503.0.html

[emac]

Lets say they changed to where you could still apply in all categories but you only get 1 choice per category. I think your odds would increase for that one hunt.

For example under the current system say 1000 people put in for peaches, goose, observatory and rimrock. You are up against 1000 applicants in each category.

Now lets say you could only select 1 hunt. To make it easy out those 1000, 250 now only apply for each of those 4 hunts equally.  No you are only apply against 250 other applications.

So it seems to me your odds would improve.

The numbers i used were just to make it easy

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

[M_ray]

My vote is for the status quo. Hunt OTC every year and pay a small fee to have a slim chance of drawing a great unit or OIL species. It’s a lottery, there should be no feeling of entitlement.  If you don’t like it, don’t play. If you want out, get out... your only out a few hundred bucks over 20 years  Not enough tags to go around

That would make sense if what we are proposing was just an idea but the reality is it works in other states and the odds do increase for each species. So stay status quo and have a slim chance or start checking off bucket list hunts! 

Odds can't go up for everybody. If odds go up for you, for whatever reason, then odds went down for somebody else.

Bobcat, it can’t be any more simple than this. As stein said it’s a trade off. It’s impossible to have less odds if you eliminate applicants from a category so technically no one has less odds. It’s a mathematical fact that if less people are in the pool you choose then your odds will be higher. The only way Someone has less odds as you are describing is if we are still allowed to put in for EVERYTHING the way it is now.

[huntnphool]

  You guys are hilarious. You keep  trying to get Bobcat to see your logic, yet you can't see his.

 You guys are arguing specific draws, as in odds of drawing the one unit you apply in and want to hunt......while Bobcat is arguing overall odds of simply drawing a tag.

 

If they would at least limit it to 1 choice per category that would improve odds also. Same revenue, same amount of categories so everyone can have all these options they feel they need but just make everyone pick 1 choice.,

Overall it wouldn't make odds better in the category, but yes some permits would probably be a little easier to draw, but others might be harder. Think about it. Same number of applicants for the same number of permits, how does that change the odds?

how would it not makes your odds better? Less applicants = bedder odds. You do the math!

The math, okay. Let's use Quality deer, 971 permits available last year, 24,064 applicants. For odds of 1 in 25.

Change it so each applicant can only apply for 1 hunt instead of 2. The new math- 971 permits, 24,064 applicants. Odds of 1 in 25.

Same, same.

...carry on.

[M_ray]

  You guys are hilarious. You keep  trying to get Bobcat to see your logic, yet you can't see his.

 You guys are arguing specific draws, as in odds of drawing the one unit you apply in and want to hunt......while Bobcat is arguing overall odds of simply drawing a tag.

 

If they would at least limit it to 1 choice per category that would improve odds also. Same revenue, same amount of categories so everyone can have all these options they feel they need but just make everyone pick 1 choice.,

Overall it wouldn't make odds better in the category, but yes some permits would probably be a little easier to draw, but others might be harder. Think about it. Same number of applicants for the same number of permits, how does that change the odds?

how would it not makes your odds better? Less applicants = bedder odds. You do the math!

The math, okay. Let's use Quality deer, 971 permits available last year, 24,064 applicants. For odds of 1 in 25.

Change it so each applicant can only apply for 1 hunt instead of 2. The new math- 971 permits, 24,064 applicants. Odds of 1 in 25.

Same, same.

...carry on.

Not saying you get one choice in each category we are saying one choice period. Bob’s math works if you get one Choice in each category but I’m suggesting one choice which eliminates applicants in each category or basically for each species.

[huntnphool]

  You guys are hilarious. You keep  trying to get Bobcat to see your logic, yet you can't see his.

 You guys are arguing specific draws, as in odds of drawing the one unit you apply in and want to hunt......while Bobcat is arguing overall odds of simply drawing a tag.

 

If they would at least limit it to 1 choice per category that would improve odds also. Same revenue, same amount of categories so everyone can have all these options they feel they need but just make everyone pick 1 choice.,

Overall it wouldn't make odds better in the category, but yes some permits would probably be a little easier to draw, but others might be harder. Think about it. Same number of applicants for the same number of permits, how does that change the odds?

how would it not makes your odds better? Less applicants = bedder odds. You do the math!

The math, okay. Let's use Quality deer, 971 permits available last year, 24,064 applicants. For odds of 1 in 25.

Change it so each applicant can only apply for 1 hunt instead of 2. The new math- 971 permits, 24,064 applicants. Odds of 1 in 25.

Same, same.

...carry on.

Not saying you get one choice in each category we are saying one choice period. Bob’s math works if you get one Choice in each category but I’m suggesting one choice which eliminates applicants in each category or basically for each species.

 Understood, but he's arguing his odds of drawing a permit.....not a specific permit....just ANY permit.

 So he's looking at it as 971 in 24,064.....in total number, not specifically one unit.

[BULLBLASTER]

  You guys are hilarious. You keep  trying to get Bobcat to see your logic, yet you can't see his.

 You guys are arguing specific draws, as in odds of drawing the one unit you apply in and want to hunt......while Bobcat is arguing overall odds of simply drawing a tag.

 

If they would at least limit it to 1 choice per category that would improve odds also. Same revenue, same amount of categories so everyone can have all these options they feel they need but just make everyone pick 1 choice.,

Overall it wouldn't make odds better in the category, but yes some permits would probably be a little easier to draw, but others might be harder. Think about it. Same number of applicants for the same number of permits, how does that change the odds?

how would it not makes your odds better? Less applicants = bedder odds. You do the math!

The math, okay. Let's use Quality deer, 971 permits available last year, 24,064 applicants. For odds of 1 in 25.

Change it so each applicant can only apply for 1 hunt instead of 2. The new math- 971 permits, 24,064 applicants. Odds of 1 in 25.

Same, same.

...carry on.

Not saying you get one choice in each category we are saying one choice period. Bob’s math works if you get one Choice in each category but I’m suggesting one choice which eliminates applicants in each category or basically for each species.

 Understood, but he's arguing his odds of drawing a permit.....not a specific permit....just ANY permit.

 So he's looking at it as 971 in 24,064.....in total number, not specifically one unit.

The problem with looking at it that way is that we don’t apply for any permit. We choose what specific permits we would like to draw. Some better odds than others.

[huntnphool]

  You guys are hilarious. You keep  trying to get Bobcat to see your logic, yet you can't see his.

 You guys are arguing specific draws, as in odds of drawing the one unit you apply in and want to hunt......while Bobcat is arguing overall odds of simply drawing a tag.

 

If they would at least limit it to 1 choice per category that would improve odds also. Same revenue, same amount of categories so everyone can have all these options they feel they need but just make everyone pick 1 choice.,

Overall it wouldn't make odds better in the category, but yes some permits would probably be a little easier to draw, but others might be harder. Think about it. Same number of applicants for the same number of permits, how does that change the odds?

how would it not makes your odds better? Less applicants = bedder odds. You do the math!

The math, okay. Let's use Quality deer, 971 permits available last year, 24,064 applicants. For odds of 1 in 25.

Change it so each applicant can only apply for 1 hunt instead of 2. The new math- 971 permits, 24,064 applicants. Odds of 1 in 25.

Same, same.

...carry on.

Not saying you get one choice in each category we are saying one choice period. Bob’s math works if you get one Choice in each category but I’m suggesting one choice which eliminates applicants in each category or basically for each species.

 Understood, but he's arguing his odds of drawing a permit.....not a specific permit....just ANY permit.

 So he's looking at it as 971 in 24,064.....in total number, not specifically one unit.

The problem with looking at it that way is that we don’t apply for any permit. We choose what specific permits we would like to draw. Some better odds than others.

 I'm not saying I agree either way, I'm simply pointing out the different way they are looking at it.

[buglebrush]

My vote is for the status quo. Hunt OTC every year and pay a small fee to have a slim chance of drawing a great unit or OIL species. It’s a lottery, there should be no feeling of entitlement.  If you don’t like it, don’t play. If you want out, get out... your only out a few hundred bucks over 20 years  Not enough tags to go around

That would make sense if what we are proposing was just an idea but the reality is it works in other states and the odds do increase for each species. So stay status quo and have a slim chance or start checking off bucket list hunts! 

Odds can't go up for everybody. If odds go up for you, for whatever reason, then odds went down for somebody else.

Are you purposely being obtuse?  Honest question.  Of course they would go up for everybody.  Do you mean to tell me that if you went to a system that you could only draw for a single species that there would somehow be a draw where the same or more people would put in for the same draw?  Of course not!   Don't be ridiculous!  As the system stands now people are putting in for Quality Bull, Quality Buck, Moose, Spring Bear, etc...  When they have to choose only one of the species the odds for everything will improve!  Drastically!  Either you're completely a troll, simply cannot grasp this simple concept, or are such a WDFW fan-boy you can't help defend them.   

[bobcat]

My vote is for the status quo. Hunt OTC every year and pay a small fee to have a slim chance of drawing a great unit or OIL species. It’s a lottery, there should be no feeling of entitlement.  If you don’t like it, don’t play. If you want out, get out... your only out a few hundred bucks over 20 years  Not enough tags to go around

That would make sense if what we are proposing was just an idea but the reality is it works in other states and the odds do increase for each species. So stay status quo and have a slim chance or start checking off bucket list hunts! 

Odds can't go up for everybody. If odds go up for you, for whatever reason, then odds went down for somebody else.

Are you purposely being obtuse?  Honest question.  Of course they would go up for everybody.  Do you mean to tell me that if you went to a system that you could only draw for a single species that there would somehow be a draw where the same or more people would put in for the same draw?  Of course not!   Don't be ridiculous!  As the system stands now people are putting in for Quality Bull, Quality Buck, Moose, Spring Bear, etc...  When they have to choose only one of the species the odds for everything will improve!  Drastically!  Either you're completely a troll, simply cannot grasp this simple concept, or are such a WDFW fan-boy you can't help defend them.   

 

I'm certainly not "defending" anybody. The system is dumb because of all the unnecessary categories. Do away with quality, youth, over 65, and disabled. All that's really needed is antlered and antlerless. But then we'd be almost going back to what we had before. It's not going to happen because of the wdfw's desire to sell as many applications as possible.

I've said this before and I'll say it one more time. If you are limited to only one species then your odds of drawing that one permit might increase slightly but at the same time your odds of drawing all the others just dropped to zero. I'd rather have a chance of drawing SOMETHING, ANYTHING, just so I can hunt. I prefer to hunt rather than sitting at home. So anything that decreases my odds of being drawn I won't be in favor of. All this discussion is meaningless anyway, as the WDFW will not change anything that will cause a decrease in revenue.

[buglebrush]

My vote is for the status quo. Hunt OTC every year and pay a small fee to have a slim chance of drawing a great unit or OIL species. It’s a lottery, there should be no feeling of entitlement.  If you don’t like it, don’t play. If you want out, get out... your only out a few hundred bucks over 20 years  Not enough tags to go around

That would make sense if what we are proposing was just an idea but the reality is it works in other states and the odds do increase for each species. So stay status quo and have a slim chance or start checking off bucket list hunts! 

Odds can't go up for everybody. If odds go up for you, for whatever reason, then odds went down for somebody else.

Are you purposely being obtuse?  Honest question.  Of course they would go up for everybody.  Do you mean to tell me that if you went to a system that you could only draw for a single species that there would somehow be a draw where the same or more people would put in for the same draw?  Of course not!   Don't be ridiculous!  As the system stands now people are putting in for Quality Bull, Quality Buck, Moose, Spring Bear, etc...  When they have to choose only one of the species the odds for everything will improve!  Drastically!  Either you're completely a troll, simply cannot grasp this simple concept, or are such a WDFW fan-boy you can't help defend them.   

 

I'm certainly not "defending" anybody. The system is dumb because of all the unnecessary categories. Do away with quality, youth, over 65, and disabled. All that's really needed is antlered and antlerless. But then we'd be almost going back to what we had before. It's not going to happen because of the wdfw's desire to sell as many applications as possible.

I've said this before and I'll say it one more time. If you are limited to only one species then your odds of drawing that one permit might increase slightly but at the same time your odds of drawing all the others just dropped to zero. I'd rather have a chance of drawing SOMETHING, ANYTHING, just so I can hunt. I prefer to hunt rather than sitting at home. So anything that decreases my odds of being drawn I won't be in favor of. All this discussion is meaningless anyway, as the WDFW will not change anything that will cause a decrease in revenue.

But I'm replying to your comment that odds cannot go up for everybody.  They can and would. 

And, you say you just want to hunt and increase your odds of being drawn.  If that's really true switching to a system like Idaho that limits how many species you can apply for( we could keep points )would drastically improve those odds.  Peroid.  Guaranteed.  You keep saying that isn't true, but it is.

[bobcat]

My vote is for the status quo. Hunt OTC every year and pay a small fee to have a slim chance of drawing a great unit or OIL species. It’s a lottery, there should be no feeling of entitlement.  If you don’t like it, don’t play. If you want out, get out... your only out a few hundred bucks over 20 years  Not enough tags to go around

That would make sense if what we are proposing was just an idea but the reality is it works in other states and the odds do increase for each species. So stay status quo and have a slim chance or start checking off bucket list hunts! 

Odds can't go up for everybody. If odds go up for you, for whatever reason, then odds went down for somebody else.

Are you purposely being obtuse?  Honest question.  Of course they would go up for everybody.  Do you mean to tell me that if you went to a system that you could only draw for a single species that there would somehow be a draw where the same or more people would put in for the same draw?  Of course not!   Don't be ridiculous!  As the system stands now people are putting in for Quality Bull, Quality Buck, Moose, Spring Bear, etc...  When they have to choose only one of the species the odds for everything will improve!  Drastically!  Either you're completely a troll, simply cannot grasp this simple concept, or are such a WDFW fan-boy you can't help defend them.   

 

I'm certainly not "defending" anybody. The system is dumb because of all the unnecessary categories. Do away with quality, youth, over 65, and disabled. All that's really needed is antlered and antlerless. But then we'd be almost going back to what we had before. It's not going to happen because of the wdfw's desire to sell as many applications as possible.

I've said this before and I'll say it one more time. If you are limited to only one species then your odds of drawing that one permit might increase slightly but at the same time your odds of drawing all the others just dropped to zero. I'd rather have a chance of drawing SOMETHING, ANYTHING, just so I can hunt. I prefer to hunt rather than sitting at home. So anything that decreases my odds of being drawn I won't be in favor of. All this discussion is meaningless anyway, as the WDFW will not change anything that will cause a decrease in revenue.

But I'm replying to your comment that odds cannot go up for everybody.  They can and would. 

And, you say you just want to hunt and increase your odds of being drawn.  If that's really true switching to a system like Idaho that limits how many species you can apply for( we could keep points )would drastically improve those odds.  Peroid.  Guaranteed.  You keep saying that isn't true, but it is.

Same number of hunters, same number of permits = same odds no matter what.

Yes, perhaps the one particular hunt you are most interested in might be easier time draw. But overall for everyone there's no way odds would suddenly increase with a change in the way the application process works. (IN MY OPINION)

I like the flexibility and the options we have now. If I was restricted to only one I'd be forced to apply for only moose, as that is where I have the most points. But then if I want to partner up with my brother, or my daughter, on a deer hunt, maybe just antlerless, I wouldn't be able to do so.

If you want to go to Idaho's system I could go along with that as long as we go all the way- no more point system. The point system is a terrible thing, bad for the recruitment of new hunters. So the very best change if we're going to change would be to eliminate points.

Another option that I like is make people choose deer or elk. You can buy one license or the other, but not both. I think this has been discussed on here in the past.