Out of the points game

[bullcanyon]

Let me try to simplify this.. Take 10 hunters that apply for everything. That's 10 applicants in every category. Now tell those 10 hunters they can only apply for deer /elk or moose, goat, sheep. On top of that only allow them 2 choices per category. With our current system the average hunter can put in for 10 different choices in just the elk category. Making those 10 hunters pick only 2 leaves 8 less applications in the hat for those other hunts.
Yes you don't have as many options to not get selected for, but you do have a better opportunity at the permit you'd really like to have.

[SkookumHntr]

That's wayyyy too complicated for bobcat to comprehend!

[bobcat]

I comprehend. I just will never want a system in which I can't continue applying for moose. Or if I do apply for moose, I can't apply for deer. Idaho is different. You don't need to draw a deer or elk permit to have a good hunt. But here you do. Why not make people decide between deer or elk? I'd go along with that. You could apply for deer OR elk, and any of the others that you want.

[Roperfive88]

The funny thing about statistics is that they can be used to make any point. For example, 100% of adults die after drinking water.

Arguments for each side:

Doesn't really help your odds that much.

The quality tag I want has 14 tags    1400 put in for the tag. Take away the points. So I have a 1 in 100 chance to draw the tag or 1% chance.

Now you only get one choice so let's say half the people go elsewhere because it's not going to be an even disbursement through the tags. The Coveted tags will attract more applicants. So now 14 tags for 700 applicants so now you doubled your odds to a whole whopping 2%. Oh and I  have a 0% chance to draw in all those other categories.

For all 700 to draw would take 50 years. But wait new people come in, people jump categories, People draw twice, and tag numbers change. So people will still not draw in their lifetime and some will draw multiple. Life is still not fair.

Yes, your odds doubled to 2% but is that really a beneficial gain to lose the chance in the other categories you put in for. I feel you are overvaluing the points increase. I still would not bet the farm on those odds.

Improves your odds a bunch.

The quality tag I want has 14 tags    1400 put in for the tag. Take away the points. So I have a 1 in 100 chance to draw the tag or 1% chance.

Now you only get one choice so let's say half the people go elsewhere because it's not going to me be an even disbursement through the tags. The Coveted tags will attract more applicants. So now 14 tags for 700 applicants so now you doubled your odds to 2%. I have now doubled my odds to draw

Yes you doubled your odds.


So both arguments using the same data different ways.

I feel that the for one choice side is overvaluing the odds increase. Of the one choice vs. the chance in all the categories. All taking away chance is not worth the small increase for one. The only tags that drastically improve odds are the lesser tags. So some get a benefit but not all There is no way to make it fair or better so I choose to have multiple choices. Still comes down to what bobcat said. 1 in 25 hunters who apply will draw a tag. Any change with all the app choices will not change that. Actually may go down because there will be tags that no one puts in for.

[Magnum_Willys]

Simple to understand - in one category I go from drawing once every hundred years to once every 30 years but other 8 categories I cant draw at all. Whats not to like?

[buglebrush]

 Believe what you want, but if you ever want to draw that moose, elk, or deer tag your odds would drastically increase by not being permitted to apply for all of them every year. 

So, I guess the question is do you really want to draw those tags or are you happy simply applying?

 I'm done.  The insanity in this thread is draining.

[M_ray]

The funny thing about statistics is that they can be used to make any point. For example, 100% of adults die after drinking water.

Arguments for each side:

Doesn't really help your odds that much.

The quality tag I want has 14 tags    1400 put in for the tag. Take away the points. So I have a 1 in 100 chance to draw the tag or 1% chance.

Now you only get one choice so let's say half the people go elsewhere because it's not going to be an even disbursement through the tags. The Coveted tags will attract more applicants. So now 14 tags for 700 applicants so now you doubled your odds to a whole whopping 2%. Oh and I  have a 0% chance to draw in all those other categories.

For all 700 to draw would take 50 years. But wait new people come in, people jump categories, People draw twice, and tag numbers change. So people will still not draw in their lifetime and some will draw multiple. Life is still not fair.

Yes, your odds doubled to 2% but is that really a beneficial gain to lose the chance in the other categories you put in for. I feel you are overvaluing the points increase. I still would not bet the farm on those odds.

Improves your odds a bunch.

The quality tag I want has 14 tags    1400 put in for the tag. Take away the points. So I have a 1 in 100 chance to draw the tag or 1% chance.

Now you only get one choice so let's say half the people go elsewhere because it's not going to me be an even disbursement through the tags. The Coveted tags will attract more applicants. So now 14 tags for 700 applicants so now you doubled your odds to 2%. I have now doubled my odds to draw

Yes you doubled your odds.


So both arguments using the same data different ways.

I feel that the for one choice side is overvaluing the odds increase. Of the one choice vs. the chance in all the categories. All taking away chance is not worth the small increase for one. The only tags that drastically improve odds are the lesser tags. So some get a benefit but not all There is no way to make it fair or better so I choose to have multiple choices. Still comes down to what bobcat said. 1 in 25 hunters who apply will draw a tag. Any change with all the app choices will not change that. Actually may go down because there will be tags that no one puts in for.

Your looking at it the wrong way and so are a couple others. You say you have a 1-100 chance and what that really means is you will draw it 1 in 100 years.

I and others aren’t trying to hide numbers we are well aware what these numbers mean which is why we are suggesting a system like that the other states are using which increase your odds of drawing to more like 1-10 1-7 and in some cases there are good quality hunts that you can draw in 3-5 years.

So you stay status quo and die before you draw but it makes you feel good every year that you have a minuscule chance OR take a little time each year to plan what it is you want to knock off your list first and get 7-10 good hunts in before you kick it! 

[NOCK NOCK]

I don't think bobcat is being a troll - he's just saying, he wants a chance to draw all species, and if we go to 1, technically his odds would go down overall since they would be 0 for other species, though they would go up for the 1 specific species.

This is the problem no matter how many times you cut a Pie its still the same size. Ya a few will have a better odds for someone hunts but at the end of the day the same amount of people are drawn and the same amount are not and complain they can't draw a permit. If you want better odds put in for the permits with a lower number of applicants but everyone wants the get rich quick better odds at thier coveted tag.

People that want to change everything refuse to realize the problem is not enough animals for the number of hunters.  They need to realize that drawing a Permit is not their right and is just a lottery. No one deserves a permit more than another whether it be a hardcore hunter or the person that likes to hunt but is not super serious about it. It is impossible for everyone to draw a tag In both our system and the purposed one. There is no silver bullet unless we could drastically change our animal numbers, but I doubt that will happen, or you pay the big bucks to buy a governer tag or a hunt out of state.

I may never draw a sheep tag, Moose tag, or quality elk permit but would much rather have a really long shot at all 3 rather than have a long shot to draw one. As well as a chance at the other categories.

The one thing I would like to see is a second draw for unsold OIL tags and for those people who pull multiple permits and want to choose just one of them and return the others for that species.

The funny thing about statistics is that they can be used to make any point. For example, 100% of adults die after drinking water.

Arguments for each side:

Doesn't really help your odds that much.

The quality tag I want has 14 tags    1400 put in for the tag. Take away the points. So I have a 1 in 100 chance to draw the tag or 1% chance.

Now you only get one choice so let's say half the people go elsewhere because it's not going to be an even disbursement through the tags. The Coveted tags will attract more applicants. So now 14 tags for 700 applicants so now you doubled your odds to a whole whopping 2%. Oh and I  have a 0% chance to draw in all those other categories.

For all 700 to draw would take 50 years. But wait new people come in, people jump categories, People draw twice, and tag numbers change. So people will still not draw in their lifetime and some will draw multiple. Life is still not fair.

Yes, your odds doubled to 2% but is that really a beneficial gain to lose the chance in the other categories you put in for. I feel you are overvaluing the points increase. I still would not bet the farm on those odds.

Improves your odds a bunch.

The quality tag I want has 14 tags    1400 put in for the tag. Take away the points. So I have a 1 in 100 chance to draw the tag or 1% chance.

Now you only get one choice so let's say half the people go elsewhere because it's not going to me be an even disbursement through the tags. The Coveted tags will attract more applicants. So now 14 tags for 700 applicants so now you doubled your odds to 2%. I have now doubled my odds to draw

Yes you doubled your odds.


So both arguments using the same data different ways.

I feel that the for one choice side is overvaluing the odds increase. Of the one choice vs. the chance in all the categories. All taking away chance is not worth the small increase for one. The only tags that drastically improve odds are the lesser tags. So some get a benefit but not all There is no way to make it fair or better so I choose to have multiple choices. Still comes down to what bobcat said. 1 in 25 hunters who apply will draw a tag. Any change with all the app choices will not change that. Actually may go down because there will be tags that no one puts in for.

 
Well said Roperfive88. 

No one is ever guaranteed to draw anything. even if your odds go from 1/1000 to 1/10, a person could go for 10+ years and never get drawn.  Its a lottery.

X amount of permits, and X amount of hunters, divide it however you want there will always only be as many successful applicants as there are permits available.

[SkookumHntr]

 

[NOCK NOCK]

    I agree.

Both views make valid points........depending on what your particular goal is.

Some just refuse to look at both views and really analyze them IMO

[Roperfive88]

The funny thing about statistics is that they can be used to make any point. For example, 100% of adults die after drinking water.

Arguments for each side:

Doesn't really help your odds that much.

The quality tag I want has 14 tags    1400 put in for the tag. Take away the points. So I have a 1 in 100 chance to draw the tag or 1% chance.

Now you only get one choice so let's say half the people go elsewhere because it's not going to be an even disbursement through the tags. The Coveted tags will attract more applicants. So now 14 tags for 700 applicants so now you doubled your odds to a whole whopping 2%. Oh and I  have a 0% chance to draw in all those other categories.

For all 700 to draw would take 50 years. But wait new people come in, people jump categories, People draw twice, and tag numbers change. So people will still not draw in their lifetime and some will draw multiple. Life is still not fair.

Yes, your odds doubled to 2% but is that really a beneficial gain to lose the chance in the other categories you put in for. I feel you are overvaluing the points increase. I still would not bet the farm on those odds.

Improves your odds a bunch.

The quality tag I want has 14 tags    1400 put in for the tag. Take away the points. So I have a 1 in 100 chance to draw the tag or 1% chance.

Now you only get one choice so let's say half the people go elsewhere because it's not going to me be an even disbursement through the tags. The Coveted tags will attract more applicants. So now 14 tags for 700 applicants so now you doubled your odds to 2%. I have now doubled my odds to draw

Yes you doubled your odds.


So both arguments using the same data different ways.

I feel that the for one choice side is overvaluing the odds increase. Of the one choice vs. the chance in all the categories. All taking away chance is not worth the small increase for one. The only tags that drastically improve odds are the lesser tags. So some get a benefit but not all There is no way to make it fair or better so I choose to have multiple choices. Still comes down to what bobcat said. 1 in 25 hunters who apply will draw a tag. Any change with all the app choices will not change that. Actually may go down because there will be tags that no one puts in for.

Your looking at it the wrong way and so are a couple others. You say you have a 1-100 chance and what that really means is you will draw it 1 in 100 years.

I and others aren’t trying to hide numbers we are well aware what these numbers mean which is why we are suggesting a system like that the other states are using which increase your odds of drawing to more like 1-10 1-7 and in some cases there are good quality hunts that you can draw in 3-5 years.

So you stay status quo and die before you draw but it makes you feel good every year that you have a minuscule chance OR take a little time each year to plan what it is you want to knock off your list first and get 7-10 good hunts in before you kick it!

[/quote]1-100 chance and what that really means is you will draw it 1 in 100 years.[/quote]
Really? Your chance to draw is 1 in 100 years. Not you will draw it 1 in 100 years. The "will" in your statement makes it false. There is no guarantee when you might draw if ever.

Your last statement is the is based on hope. You can't guarantee I will draw with the one choice system In the proposed system you can't say everyone is going to get 7 to 10 good hunts it's still luck of the draw. In the current system I have drawn 1 quality deer, 3 buck deer, 1 antlerless elk. So in the one choice system, I only draw one tag. Even in the system we have, there are hunts that you can put in for and draw more than others. With the multiple categories, you can be strategic to make your odds better.

[WAcoueshunter]

Yes you don't have as many options to not get selected for, but you do have a better opportunity at the permit you'd really like to have.

That's really the punch line for the one choice crew.  And it's true.  Your overall odds of drawing ANY tag might not get better, and in fact they might get worse depending on what you choose for your one choice.  But if you're a single species guy, or you just want a "quality" tag and don't put in for the other categories, your odds for that single species or quality tag WILL get better. 

For those like Bobcat, who just like to hunt and are happy with an antlerless tag, but still want a chance at a moose tag, going the one choice route would really suck.  And I think there's more people like him than not. 

Personally, would I rather sit on the sideline for 10 years waiting for a quality tag but have no other tags and no chance of drawing OIL?  Or would I rather the current system, and pull some form of draw tag every few years (buck tag one year, antlerless another, rare occasion something great), but wait longer for the quality tag and maybe forever for an OIL tag?  Personally, I'd take the latter.  But I understand that the folks that are OIL or Quality or BUST are frustrated with that.

[NOCK NOCK]

Yes you don't have as many options to not get selected for, but you do have a better opportunity at the permit you'd really like to have.

That's really the punch line for the one choice crew.  And it's true.  Your overall odds of drawing ANY tag might not get better, and in fact they might get worse depending on what you choose for your one choice.  But if you're a single species guy, or you just want a "quality" tag and don't put in for the other categories, your odds for that single species or quality tag WILL get better. 

For those like Bobcat, who just like to hunt and are happy with an antlerless tag, but still want a chance at a moose tag, going the one choice route would really suck.  And I think there's more people like him than not. 

Personally, would I rather sit on the sideline for 10 years waiting for a quality tag but have no other tags and no chance of drawing OIL?  Or would I rather the current system, and pull some form of draw tag every few years (buck tag one year, antlerless another, rare occasion something great), but wait longer for the quality tag and maybe forever for an OIL tag?  Personally, I'd take the latter.  But I understand that the folks that are OIL or Quality or BUST are frustrated with that.

THIS. 

and.....

Roper makes great points in all his replies  to you sir

[Roperfive88]

Believe what you want, but if you ever want to draw that moose, elk, or deer tag your odds would drastically increase by not being permitted to apply for all of them every year. 

So, I guess the question is do you really want to draw those tags or are you happy simply applying?

 I'm done.  The insanity in this thread is draining.

Just because you get one choice doesn't mean that you will draw one of those tags. A doubling or tripling of your odds that are 1% or 2% is not a drastic increase in chance. You are still not likely to be drawn. Ya, some will have great odds but those are the ones with already better odds. With moose goat and sheep those are so few tags it's not going to guarantee anything.

[Bob33]

This might be a good time to highlight the differences between a bonus point system and a preference point system.

A preference point system allocates permits to applicants with the most points first. If there is a hunt that has two applicants with the maximum of ten points, and there are two permits available then both of the ten point applicants get a permit. Applicants with less than ten points have no chance (0%) of being drawn. The beauty of a preference point system is that when you get to a certain points level, you are guaranteed to get a permit. One of the primary drawbacks to a preference point system is “points creep” where the number of points required to draw continues to get higher. You have nine points to draw a permit but it takes ten; next year you have ten points but it takes 11. Another drawback is that you have no chance to draw until you reach the upper levels. As the point level required to draw many hunts continues to climb into the teens and higher, the appeal of getting into that pool becomes less and less. Most point systems started in the last 30 years, so the number of points required to draw the best permits still seems achievable to many. That will change. Why get into a raffle and pay a fee for 30 years that you have zero chance of drawing during that period of time? The Ponzi schemes will eventually unravel.

Washington has a bonus point system which gives unsuccessful applicants a point for applying and not drawing. More points means more names in the hat. What it can never due is guarantee a permit; the statistics just work that way. Some believe that if you apply for something with a 1 in 10 chance of winning and do it 10 years in a row you’re guaranteed to win, but you’re not. In this example of 1 in 10 odds for ten years the chance of winning at least once in the ten years isn’t 100%; it’s 65%.  Even after 20 years it’s still only 87%.

There are hybrids, and they have pros and cons as well.

No system is perfect.