22 points

[trophyhunt]

You pretty much nailed it! 

[slim9300]

So many people here are making stupid comments about the draw system in WA. If you don’t know your odds prior to applying, how can you properly set your expectations? What if I told you that most of the best elk and deer tags in this state have a roughly 1% (1/100) chance of being drawn with 20 points? Even if the odds were 5%, that’s 1/20 that you would get a tag. That’s terrible! As the total number of tags available go down (let’s say due to predation and an inability to manage ungulate populations by the state), your points actually become less valuable in many cases. With that knowledge, hopefully you would have the common sense to never expect to draw a tag with tiny odds.

This state has far too many people applying for too few tags to ever be ‘fixed.’ It statistically cannot happen. If you want a decent chance to draw a good tag, apply for another state. You have better odds of drawing a far better elk tag in NM your first year, than drawing a ‘decent’ elk tag in this state with 20 points. You know why? NM has WAY more special permit tags available for application, and doesn’t have general season hunting. At least you can hunt every year in this state, but I doubt that will last forever.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Bigshooter]

So many people here are making stupid comments about the draw system in WA. If you don’t know your odds prior to applying, how can you properly set your expectations? What if I told you that most of the best elk and deer tags in this state have a roughly 1% (1/100) chance of being drawn with 20 points? Even if the odds were 5%, that’s 1/20 that you would get a tag. That’s terrible! As the total number of tags available go down (let’s say due to predation and an inability to manage ungulate populations by the state), your points actually become less valuable in many cases. With that knowledge, hopefully you would have the common sense to never expect to draw a tag with tiny odds.

This state has far too many people applying for too few tags to ever be ‘fixed.’ It statistically cannot happen. If you want a decent chance to draw a good tag, apply for another state. You have better odds of drawing a far better elk tag in NM your first year, than drawing a ‘decent’ elk tag in this state with 20 points. You know why? NM has WAY more special permit tags available for application, and doesn’t have general season hunting. At least you can hunt every year in this state, but I doubt that will last forever.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Another person that gets it.

[stw]

Isn't there page on here about going to a all draw State for the elk heard just think of the people getting there way go to draw only for elk and you still don't draw for 2 to 3 years people be saying wish we could still hunt for elk after not drawing  like the old way  lol

[Stein]

From WDFW's perspective, the system works perfect.  They can reduce tags in a unit by 75% and will still get the same revenue, usually even more year over year.  It encourages people to apply for more categories more often then a pure random draw and the revenue is based on the players, not the number of tags.  It also tends to greatly overestimate anyone's chances because 22 points is a bunch and the human brain works in strange ways sometimes.  People with max points think they have great odds, maybe even close to guaranteed when as noted, it might be 1%.

From our perspective, there are two sides to the coin.  For most people, "fixing" the system means making it easier for THEM to draw a tag, whatever their situation and preference is.  As we know, the only way for it to be easier for me to draw is make it harder or impossible for someone else to draw.

In order to increase any odds, you would have to limit the number of people applying and many people prefer to enter many categories vs having to chose one.  Thus, it won't likely change, because we have different and competing preferences.  The only thing that will change is the cost will go up occasionally and the odds will go down every year unless we get more animals or less hunters.  Whatever the scheme, they all involve taking away opportunity which is the only way to increase anyone's odds.

The way I looked at it is that to get those 22 points, it would cost me $286 in application costs (likely more as fees increase over time) plus the base license I normally don't use for a 1% shot at something or spend that money elsewhere where I can pull tags every 2-3 years.  I would rather go on a great antelope hunt in MT or WY than have 22 years of NOT SELECTED for elk and they both cost about the same.  If you have to buy the base elk license and don't hunt the general, it's a fool's game unless you have the money to play in state and out of state.

[slim9300]

From WDFW's perspective, the system works perfect.  They can reduce tags in a unit by 75% and will still get the same revenue, usually even more year over year.  It encourages people to apply for more categories more often then a pure random draw and the revenue is based on the players, not the number of tags.  It also tends to greatly overestimate anyone's chances because 22 points is a bunch and the human brain works in strange ways sometimes.  People with max points think they have great odds, maybe even close to guaranteed when as noted, it might be 1%.

From our perspective, there are two sides to the coin.  For most people, "fixing" the system means making it easier for THEM to draw a tag, whatever their situation and preference is.  As we know, the only way for it to be easier for me to draw is make it harder or impossible for someone else to draw.

In order to increase any odds, you would have to limit the number of people applying and many people prefer to enter many categories vs having to chose one.  Thus, it won't likely change, because we have different and competing preferences.  The only thing that will change is the cost will go up occasionally and the odds will go down every year unless we get more animals or less hunters.  Whatever the scheme, they all involve taking away opportunity which is the only way to increase anyone's odds.

The way I looked at it is that to get those 22 points, it would cost me $286 in application costs (likely more as fees increase over time) plus the base license I normally don't use for a 1% shot at something or spend that money elsewhere where I can pull tags every 2-3 years.  I would rather go on a great antelope hunt in MT or WY than have 22 years of NOT SELECTED for elk and they both cost about the same.  If you have to buy the base elk license and don't hunt the general, it's a fool's game unless you have the money to play in state and out of state.

Exactly.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[vandeman17]

I have double digit points in multiple categories with my highest being 17 for next year and would gladly give them all up today to go back to a purely random draw with no point system. Give me one deer choice, one elk choice and then one of the 3 OIL species with one choice and I would be happy.

[Ridgeratt]

I have double digit points in multiple categories with my highest being 17 for next year and would gladly give them all up today to go back to a purely random draw with no point system. Give me one deer choice, one elk choice and then one of the 3 OIL species with one choice and I would be happy.

Absolutely but upfront the tag fees and if not drawn keep the application fees. Refund the rest.

[stw]

Or go back to the 90s when you draw tag for elk you couldn't put back in for 4 years

[idaho guy]

I have double digit points in multiple categories with my highest being 17 for next year and would gladly give them all up today to go back to a purely random draw with no point system. Give me one deer choice, one elk choice and then one of the 3 OIL species with one choice and I would be happy.

 
Limiting entry’s to 1 oil tag or 1 deer category and 1 elk category would significantly improve odds and fix a lot of problems. Do it just like Idaho or even go to just 1 choice in only one category guys with high points would actually have decent odds. Once you draw you’re out of that category for 3-4 years. It’s a simple fix but still wouldn’t be great just a lot better.

[Stein]

I have double digit points in multiple categories with my highest being 17 for next year and would gladly give them all up today to go back to a purely random draw with no point system. Give me one deer choice, one elk choice and then one of the 3 OIL species with one choice and I would be happy.

 
Limiting entry’s to 1 oil tag or 1 deer category and 1 elk category would significantly improve odds and fix a lot of problems. Do it just like Idaho or even go to just 1 choice in only one category guys with high points would actually have decent odds. Once you draw you’re out of that category for 3-4 years. It’s a simple fix but still wouldn’t be great just a lot better.

When that is brought up there is typically a chorus of guys who want to be able to apply for everything and are very opposed to having to make that choice. 

If I were king, everyone would get one permit application per year.  Let hunters decide what is important for them.  That said, what seems to be important to more than a few is being able to apply for tons of stuff as opposed to actually being able to draw.  Anyone that hunts or fishes must be an optimist at some level I guess.

[dvolmer]

From WDFW's perspective, the system works perfect.  They can reduce tags in a unit by 75% and will still get the same revenue, usually even more year over year.  It encourages people to apply for more categories more often then a pure random draw and the revenue is based on the players, not the number of tags.  It also tends to greatly overestimate anyone's chances because 22 points is a bunch and the human brain works in strange ways sometimes.  People with max points think they have great odds, maybe even close to guaranteed when as noted, it might be 1%.

From our perspective, there are two sides to the coin.  For most people, "fixing" the system means making it easier for THEM to draw a tag, whatever their situation and preference is.  As we know, the only way for it to be easier for me to draw is make it harder or impossible for someone else to draw.

In order to increase any odds, you would have to limit the number of people applying and many people prefer to enter many categories vs having to chose one.  Thus, it won't likely change, because we have different and competing preferences.  The only thing that will change is the cost will go up occasionally and the odds will go down every year unless we get more animals or less hunters.  Whatever the scheme, they all involve taking away opportunity which is the only way to increase anyone's odds.

The way I looked at it is that to get those 22 points, it would cost me $286 in application costs (likely more as fees increase over time) plus the base license I normally don't use for a 1% shot at something or spend that money elsewhere where I can pull tags every 2-3 years.  I would rather go on a great antelope hunt in MT or WY than have 22 years of NOT SELECTED for elk and they both cost about the same.  If you have to buy the base elk license and don't hunt the general, it's a fool's game unless you have the money to play in state and out of state.

Bingo!!!!!  Nailed it Stein!!!

[vandeman17]

I have double digit points in multiple categories with my highest being 17 for next year and would gladly give them all up today to go back to a purely random draw with no point system. Give me one deer choice, one elk choice and then one of the 3 OIL species with one choice and I would be happy.

 
Limiting entry’s to 1 oil tag or 1 deer category and 1 elk category would significantly improve odds and fix a lot of problems. Do it just like Idaho or even go to just 1 choice in only one category guys with high points would actually have decent odds. Once you draw you’re out of that category for 3-4 years. It’s a simple fix but still wouldn’t be great just a lot better.

When that is brought up there is typically a chorus of guys who want to be able to apply for everything and are very opposed to having to make that choice. 

If I were king, everyone would get one permit application per year.  Let hunters decide what is important for them.  That said, what seems to be important to more than a few is being able to apply for tons of stuff as opposed to actually being able to draw.  Anyone that hunts or fishes must be an optimist at some level I guess.

That is very true but I also don’t think those optimists really know how crappy their odds actually are by having all those categories. My assumption is that they believe that each additional point gives them much better odds. While it is true that it does give them better odds, when the unit they are applying for starts out with one point odds of like .3% then each additional point really doesn’t do squat.

I think one deer application so it could be buck, doe, second or whatever you choose. Same with elk being bull or cow. Let hunters choose their goals and decide on the odds they want to pursue. For OIL, only allow one species to be applied for and same principle applies for bull, cow, ram, ewe or whatever. If you wanted to go even farther, which I am on the fence about, front the OIL money.

[OltHunter]

Did our system used to be 1 app per species with 4 options?

[bobcat]

Did our system used to be 1 app per species with 4 options?

Yes