Preference points

[Stein]

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?

It's been proposed on here, but some people prefer having the ability to apply for everything.

It would increase your odds of drawing the tag you apply for but would obviously decrease your ability to draw all the other tags you couldn't apply for. 

This is my preferred "fix" as it would give people a better chance at drawing their first preference.  I would actually propose you can only submit one special application total, pick what you really want and then get better odds at actually drawing it.

Very much revenue negative for WDFW though, so I'm not holding my breath.

[Rainier10]

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.

So after the first year instead of 3480 people applying for entiat rifle there would only be 3460. By year 7 it would be 3340 and hold steady there forever because each year after that you would be losing 20 but 20 more would then be eligible again after waiting there 7 years.

[vandeman17]

For those who don't fully understand point creep, here is GoHunt's article which explains it pretty well

https://www.gohunt.com/content/insider/tips/point-creep---what-is-it-and-learn-how-it-could-impact-you

[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.

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.

So after the first year instead of 3480 people applying for entiat rifle there would only be 3460. By year 7 it would be 3340 and hold steady there forever because each year after that you would be losing 20 but 20 more would then be eligible again after waiting there 7 years.

It's even worse than that as there are new hunters entering the draw every year and in many units the tag numbers are on the decline.

[nwmein199]

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.

If WA tag system really bugs you that much, you should only apply for tags in Colorado and Arizona. There you wont have to deal with the WDFW BS of tags being given to people who are not the top point holders.

Randy Newberg makes a great point about this often in his podcasts....hunter numbers are already decreasing and that is not a good thing for us hunters. By having a preference points system, it prevents new hunters from entering the tag application game as it is impossible to draw tags unless you started applying the first year they were offered in that state. Here in WA, a new hunter has a chance at the best tags in the state from day 1 so gives them a little more incentive to join the hunting community.

[M_ray]

...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.

I was thinking you would say that...that's just straight up apples to oranges, and certainly not proof.  Being able to draw a good tag in Idaho versus WA could be attributable to lots of factors, like (i) how many tags were available for the hunt you wanted, and (ii) how many people in WA had more points than you did.  An individual's anecdotal experience doesn't equate to math.

 

It’s not hard to understand that if you have only 1 choice per species it increases odds for those putting in because it excludes some that pick a different species and that my friend is apples to apples. You might need math for that but I do not 
 

[M_ray]

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

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

Number 2 is what I would be in favor of. Either this proposal by Huntnphool or a combo between this and how it is done in Idaho that limits all these choices we currently have.  Having several choices for each animal dilutes the pool and ultimately gives each person lower odds of drawing.

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?

It's been proposed on here, but some people prefer having the ability to apply for everything.

It would increase your odds of drawing the tag you apply for but would obviously decrease your ability to draw all the other tags you couldn't apply for. 

This is my preferred "fix" as it would give people a better chance at drawing their first preference.  I would actually propose you can only submit one special application total, pick what you really want and then get better odds at actually drawing it.

Very much revenue negative for WDFW though, so I'm not holding my breath.

@Wacousehunter

Stein and I are saying the same thing here although Stein much more eloquent than me! 

[M_ray]

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?

It's been proposed on here, but some people prefer having the ability to apply for everything.

It would increase your odds of drawing the tag you apply for but would obviously decrease your ability to draw all the other tags you couldn't apply for. 

This is my preferred "fix" as it would give people a better chance at drawing their first preference.  I would actually propose you can only submit one special application total, pick what you really want and then get better odds at actually drawing it.

Very much revenue negative for WDFW though, so I'm not holding my breath.

So Stein, would you be in favor of this if it meant a higher permit fee per app to make up for those lost by the limitation? I would personally because I’m currently going to spend that money on several crappy odds and would gladly put them all together for one at greater odds. This is what it would take for the State to even consider it because we all know they don’t give up revenue.

Again another problem is selling this to our hunting brothers and sisters. They would not be in favor of an increase even though they are spending the same on several at lower odds of drawing.

[Stein]

So, full disclaimer here, I haven't bought a big game license in WA for several years now.

That said, sure, I'd rather pay more for a better chance.

[bobcat]

One easy way to fix the point system in Washington for deer and elk- eliminate general seasons. Increase the number of permits accordingly. Boom. Anybody who wants to hunt deer or elk in this state, uses their points to do so. Sure would be cycling people through their points a lot more regularly.

[M_ray]

So, full disclaimer here, I haven't bought a big game license in WA for several years now.

That said, sure, I'd rather pay more for a better chance.

 👍🏼

[buglebrush]

The only fix for Washington hunting is to deal with predators aggressively.  Since that doesn't look likely it's probably hopeless.  However, limiting applications to a max of 1-3 total would certainly help the draw odds.  Bottom line is that the WDFW doesn't care about hunters at all.  Complete garbage.

[bobcat]

Limiting the number of applications a person can submit, or number of choices per application, would do absolutely nothing to improve overall odds of drawing a special permit. The number of people is still the same, and the number of permits. So odds would stay the same. As someone else said, the way to improve odds is to decrease the number of people applying, or increase the number of permits.

[Rainier10]

It’s super simple if you want to draw a permit every 7-8 years give up your option to OTC hunt every year.

[buglebrush]

Limiting the number of applications a person can submit, or number of choices per application, would do absolutely nothing to improve overall odds of drawing a special permit. The number of people is still the same, and the number of permits. So odds would stay the same. As someone else said, the way to improve odds is to decrease the number of people applying, or increase the number of permits.

This is absolutely untrue.  It's not about the number of people, but the number of applications.