"points" is there really a point

[bobcat]

So humor me.  what exactly is the point to "square" points. Why not if you have 20 points get 20 numbers,

To give you false hope, it doesn't change the odds.

Squaring points does give better odds. Why would it give someone false hope? Only for those who don't understand how it works. 20 points squared gives you 400 chances, which gives you a 20 times greater chance of being drawn than if the points weren't squared.

[Woodchuck]

Except everyone else has squared points as well, the amount of "entries" changes but not the odds.

[ljsommer]

Dont choose to be miserable.. This is an awesome time we are living in

This should probably be sticked. Just create a subform called "Special tags in WA" and then sticky this quote.

I do second the post that mentioned that understanding a system is useful. There's definitely a contradiction between "We need more hunters" and "Your odds are going way, way, way down every single year". It feels like they should be inline at best, or neutral at worst.
"More people, fewer (percentage) winners" is the core tenet of a pyramid scheme.

That said, WA is gorgeous and our OTC tag options are far bigger than I imagined when I got into this sport. The more time I spend on keyboard-scouting the more I realize that I don't have *any room at all* to complain about anything until I've really gotten out there and see what all an OTC tag can offer, and frankly, that's going to take me about 50 years. So if you see me on here complaining from now until about 2070, remind me of this post

[jackelope]

The guy with 21 points may have slightly worse odds than he did the year before when he had 20 points. However, with 21 points he will always have better odds than someone with 20 points and far greater odds than someone with one point.

It doesn't have to be significantly better...it just has to be "better" to be accurate.
My odds with 10 points are .025%. My odds with 20 points are .015%. What...they're better...

[bobcat]

Well, what does change is those who draw and lose their points, go into the draw the following year with only one point. The problem is too many applicants for not enough permits to clear people with high points out of the system. It was much better before they created all the additional categories back in 2010(?)

[Woodchuck]

Well, what does change is those who draw and lose their points, go into the draw the following year with only one point. The problem is too many applicants for not enough permits to clear people with high points out of the system. It was much better before they created all the additional categories back in 2010(?)

That sir is absolutely correct. 

[bobcat]

You know what's really stupid is using the point system for the moose, sheep, and goat draws. Those should be a 100% random draw. Just think, 30 years from now many people will be at 50+ points. Just so dumb. If there aren't enough tags to cycle most applicants through the system in say ten years or so, then it shouldn't be on a point system, in my opinion.

[X-Force]

In washington points arent the issue the issue is categories and the ability to have multiple applications across every permitted species. Though I would strongly support having no points at all.

With a finite amount of available permits there should be a more discerning amount of options available.

We enjoy OTC Cougar, Bear, Deer and Elk so IMO there is no reason to have such a broad application system.

There are roughly 24,000 deer, elk, moose, sheep and goat permits issued every year and there is roughly 50,000 (probably less) people applying for them. Simply changing the application to 1 species and 1 or 2 options would drastically increase odd of people drawing permits they really want because they would have to be more discerning about their applications.

No one wants to make a choice, instead they want their cake and eat it too... and WDFW wants revenue so our current system is a win win. 

[BULLBLASTER]

In washington points arent the issue the issue is categories and the ability to have multiple applications across every permitted species. Though I would strongly support having no points at all.

With a finite amount of available permits there should be a more discerning amount of options available.

We enjoy OTC Cougar, Bear, Deer and Elk so IMO there is no reason to have such a broad application system.

There are roughly 24,000 deer, elk, moose, sheep and goat permits issued every year and there is roughly 50,000 (probably less) people applying for them. Simply changing the application to 1 species and 1 or 2 options would drastically increase odd of people drawing permits they really want because they would have to be more discerning about their applications.

No one wants to make a choice, instead they want their cake and eat it too... and WDFW wants revenue so our current system is a win win. 

  it’s been said many many times and in many many ways but this post is exactly right!

[SuperX]

You know what's really stupid is using the point system for the moose, sheep, and goat draws. Those should be a 100% random draw. Just think, 30 years from now many people will be at 50+ points. Just so dumb. If there aren't enough tags to cycle most applicants through the system in say ten years or so, then it shouldn't be on a point system, in my opinion.

Agree though I think in 10 years, judging by moose population declines further east and predator proliferation, we'll be lucky to have any draw at all. 

[JimmyHoffa]

You know what's really stupid is using the point system for the moose, sheep, and goat draws. Those should be a 100% random draw. Just think, 30 years from now many people will be at 50+ points. Just so dumb. If there aren't enough tags to cycle most applicants through the system in say ten years or so, then it shouldn't be on a point system, in my opinion.

I think WDFW tries to figure on the people paying for points only.  But the high number of people that don't mess with those species due to the competition having built so many points costs them new people.  Which is a bigger revenue/cost, though?   

[milldozer]

Everyone should keep their points.  You should be able to submit 1 special permit application: deer, elk, moose, goat, etc.  Anything, but you can only pick 1 per year.  That 1 application should cost ~70 to makeup for the lost revenue from dropping multiple applications (assuming everyone submits for all quality/oil tags).  WDFW would keep their revenue, and hunters would be able to draw quality hunts on a more realistic interval.  Personally, if I had drawn a quality tag I wouldn't want another one the same year.  I don't really see a down side.

[Stein]

Everyone should keep their points.  You should be able to submit 1 special permit application: deer, elk, moose, goat, etc.  Anything, but you can only pick 1 per year.  That 1 application should cost ~70 to makeup for the lost revenue from dropping multiple applications (assuming everyone submits for all quality/oil tags).  WDFW would keep their revenue, and hunters would be able to draw quality hunts on a more realistic interval.  Personally, if I had drawn a quality tag I wouldn't want another one the same year.  I don't really see a down side.

A bunch of people like being able to apply for multiple tags per year even if the odds are lower.

[SteelheadTed]

Except everyone else has squared points as well, the amount of "entries" changes but not the odds.

I'm not sure I understand.  With more points your odds improve BECAUSE you have more entries. 

[milldozer]

I can see that, but what is the point of applying for a bunch of tags every year if you can't reasonably expect to draw one in your lifetime?  I did some quick math on the a few of the premier quality tags based on last years draw data..  For Entiat, an applicant with 10 points had a .5% chance to draw a tag.  15 points was 1.11% and 20 was 2%.  Disclaimer: I am no mathematician, but even if I'm off by a factor of 2 the odds are still abysmal.