collapse

Advertisement


Author Topic: Oh No!  (Read 20868 times)

Offline bobcat

  • Global Moderator
  • Trade Count: (+14)
  • Legend
  • *****
  • Join Date: Mar 2007
  • Posts: 39209
  • Location: Rochester
    • robert68
Re: Oh No!
« Reply #75 on: January 11, 2010, 03:22:31 PM »
Somewhere between the Unit A and hat A, you lost me. I guess we must have had different statistics classes. Oh well, it makes no difference, as it sounds like they're staying with the 4 choices, but adding another 4 for the antlerless pool.

Offline billythekidrock

  • Varmint
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Explorer
  • ******
  • Join Date: Mar 2007
  • Posts: 13440
Re: Oh No!
« Reply #76 on: January 11, 2010, 05:08:04 PM »
But boneaddict, we don't know what people would do if they were only allowed 1 or 2 choices. It could be that if people only had 1 choice, they wouldn't apply for the Entiat, knowing it is one of the most popular mule deer permits, and maybe the majority would then only apply for your Methow permits, making your odds worse. That's all I've been saying all along, is we don't know how odds would change for each permit. Some would be better odds, some worse. But overall, odds would stay exactly the same.

I agree. We don't know what others will apply for, but we do know that some units will recieve less applicants. Those units could change year by year depending on harvest statistics.

Like I said before, I saw a units applicants more then triple the year they went to 4 choices.






Offline Lowedog

  • Trade Count: (+6)
  • Frontiersman
  • *****
  • Join Date: Jul 2007
  • Posts: 2584
Re: Oh No!
« Reply #77 on: January 11, 2010, 07:32:50 PM »
Hey Bobcat, you might as well just give up on these guys.  You know what comedian Ron White says..... :chuckle:
"Ethical behavior is doing the right thing when no one else is watching- even when doing the wrong thing is legal."
— Aldo Leopold

Offline Ridgerunner

  • Trade Count: (+2)
  • Old Salt
  • ******
  • Join Date: Mar 2007
  • Posts: 5104
  • Location: Enumclaw
Re: Oh No!
« Reply #78 on: January 12, 2010, 07:28:09 PM »
This has been an entertaining read, I think if choices were limited then what Bobcat is saying would come true, and for teh record I have been advocating limiting your choice to OIL species since before I drew a moose tag.  I'm sure you can find a dozen posts of mine to that effect, what I'd like to see before that is making us front the tag fees or increase the cost to apply.  $$$$ for the state and better odds for us serious about those tags.

Offline WDFW-SUX

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Old Salt
  • ******
  • Join Date: Mar 2007
  • Posts: 5724
Re: Oh No!
« Reply #79 on: January 12, 2010, 07:30:52 PM »
Its statistically improbable that any unit would have worse odds... YAWN
THE WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE SUCKS MORE THAN EVER..........

 


* Advertisement

* Recent Topics

Big game season proposals by swanderek
[Yesterday at 08:43:40 PM]


Oregon antelope by finnman
[Yesterday at 07:59:52 PM]


Alpine Lakes Bear Hunt Thoughts by ganghis
[Yesterday at 07:06:30 PM]


Fundraiser for the Jake's chapter of NWTF by waterdrinker9
[Yesterday at 02:26:04 PM]


Turkey Vest Recommendations? by waterdrinker9
[Yesterday at 02:23:10 PM]


Ruger Single Six, extra cylinders,.22 and .22 winmag by cdriver
[Yesterday at 02:00:56 PM]


WTB single shot 410 by HighlandLofts
[Yesterday at 11:13:42 AM]


Lifesize mountain lion by Pegasus
[Yesterday at 10:51:37 AM]


Washington Euro mounting Plaque*free give away for youth hunter* by fire*guy
[Yesterday at 07:24:13 AM]


Results of 3 point or better rule by Kingofthemountain83
[February 06, 2026, 07:03:38 PM]


Rabbits on the Yakama Reservation? by Goshawk
[February 06, 2026, 06:03:50 PM]

SimplePortal 2.3.7 © 2008-2026, SimplePortal