Preference points

[Stein]

There are only two ways to increase odds for everyone that applies:

1.  Give out more tags
2.  Have less people in the draw

[trophyhunt]

You do feel like your points are worth something after many years or decades, they should be.  Now do I feel entitled, no, but I sure wish the points meant more and higher point holders drew more.  Sure, it's gets under my skin when someone under X amount of points draws when guys with 20+ points don't even come close, that is not how it should work in my opinion.  I know, I know, the guys with massive points DO have a better chance, but it should be more than 1.2% compared to .01%.  I've said it before, I think a certain % of tags should only go to the highest point holders, even when I have zero I'll think the same.  For the record, I'd like this point system to go away, no more points given out and when you go to zero, it's done. 

[Stein]

If they go to a system where tags go to the highest point holder, it's really over.  Nobody with under 10 points would ever draw a quality tag until all the guys over 30 die.

If there were a way to fix it, some states would have done it.  The best thing WDFW could do is actually manage the resource so we aren't all arguing over 1 tag.

[huntnphool]

Points aren't to reward people, they are designed to keep them playing the game every year.  Given the bleak tag numbers, how many people would stop applying if there were no points and just a random draw?  Having X points drives people to keep playing year after year because they have sunk costs and are lead to believe they are close to drawing because they are due.

 If there were no points, but you still had to apply to get the tags you want, people would apply.

 Much like Idaho.

[trophyhunt]

If they go to a system where tags go to the highest point holder, it's really over.  Nobody with under 10 points would ever draw a quality tag until all the guys over 30 die.

If there were a way to fix it, some states would have done it.  The best thing WDFW could do is actually manage the resource so we aren't all arguing over 1 tag.

I agree with that last part!!!  If they'd pull their heads out of their butts and get rid of all anti's on the board, we'd have plenty of resources (animals).

[huntnphool]

If there were a way to fix it, some states would have done it.

 I gave you a way to fix Washington’s

[Stein]

Points aren't to reward people, they are designed to keep them playing the game every year.  Given the bleak tag numbers, how many people would stop applying if there were no points and just a random draw?  Having X points drives people to keep playing year after year because they have sunk costs and are lead to believe they are close to drawing because they are due.

 If there were no points, but you still had to apply to get the tags you want, people would apply.

 Much like Idaho.

True, but look how many people buy ghost points.  Every year they can't hunt or don't want to hunt for whatever reason, they wouldn't apply.

[huntnphool]

Points aren't to reward people, they are designed to keep them playing the game every year.  Given the bleak tag numbers, how many people would stop applying if there were no points and just a random draw?  Having X points drives people to keep playing year after year because they have sunk costs and are lead to believe they are close to drawing because they are due.

 If there were no points, but you still had to apply to get the tags you want, people would apply.

 Much like Idaho.

True, but look how many people buy ghost points.  Every year they can't hunt or don't want to hunt for whatever reason, they wouldn't apply.

 I buy ghost points because I don’t want to double up on tags. Now that I can turn one back in, it’s not so much a big deal.

[Stein]

You can buy OIL points for a one year old, I bet 70% of the points I have bought for my kids were ghost points.  When I used to play, I would probably be 50% or more ghost points.  That was before the turn in was possible, so as you mentioned it makes it less of an issue.

I don't think WDFW publishes it, but states that do have massive numbers in that category.

On the flip side, a guy could argue that going random would have some people enter the game that didn't play because they entered the game late or drew in the last few years and realize they won't draw again.

[WAcoueshunter]

Points aren't to reward people, they are designed to keep them playing the game every year.  Given the bleak tag numbers, how many people would stop applying if there were no points and just a random draw?  Having X points drives people to keep playing year after year because they have sunk costs and are lead to believe they are close to drawing because they are due.

 If there were no points, but you still had to apply to get the tags you want, people would apply.

 Much like Idaho.

Not everyone.  I don't apply every year in ID and NM.  But I won't miss a year in the States where I have points. 

[M_ray]

Yep exactly what we’re saying! because what you’re not taking into consideration is the guy with 20 points goes deeper and deeper down the point creep hole. His odds now are 1% and immediately go to 3-4% with a system like Idaho!

Can you explain your math?

Short answer is it’s not my math

Long answer is I have seen the spread sheet made by a member here and it makes sense when you see it. He hasn’t been active for awhile but is well respected here and active in state hunting groups and WA season setting so he has a good grasp of the numbers used. If I can talk him into it I’ll see if he will post but the last time this came up I was asked the same thing and he didn’t wish to participate in the discussion.

He did the math on most of the tags given in both states and a side by side comparison with draw odds based on the amount of people applying at the time which was about 5 yerars ago. Every category at the time increases odds from 1 or less % to 3-4 and I think there may have been some categories close or over 5. I left that out and went with the lower ones I recall seeing. So although not my spreadsheets it isn’t something I pulled out of my @$$ 😉 they may be out dated with time but the point is that their system rewards you more and frequently than WA does. And if you don’t believe in this because you can’t see the math  just listen to those who actually put in to each state and they are telling you they draw Idaho special tags at a higher rate than WA so the proof is clear there. I prefer their system from my experience.

[Stein]

You can't increase everyone's odds by changing the application system only.  It's a zero sum game there, if my odds go up someone's odds have to go down.

ID odds are better because they have more tags, or more specifically, less people applying for a given tag than WA.

[KNOPHISH]

For all the app fees say after 25 years you get 1 free license.

[baker5150]

What do you guys think would happen if they limited us to only 1 hunt choice in each category?

Would it help, or just shift the odds around some?

[baker5150]

You can't increase everyone's odds by changing the application system only.  It's a zero sum game there, if my odds go up someone's odds have to go down.

ID odds are better because they have more tags, or more specifically, less people applying for a given tag than WA.

This supports the argument for a set time ban from applying after you draw.  I think Montana has this for some hunts, a 7 year wait IIRC.

Odds go up for those who haven't drawn yet.

20 tags go out, the next year would have 20 less applicants, then 40, then 60 etc. etc.