8 different special apps pools!

[Bob33]

Is it fair to conclude that WDFW instructed Outdoor Central to make these changes without public input?  They may have selectively solicited input but that is not truly public.

[billythekidrock]

Is it fair to conclude that WDFW instructed Outdoor Central to make these changes without public input?  They may have selectively solicited input but that is not truly public.

I would say yes, you are probably right.

[Mike_D]

I usually speak up much earlier on this stuff, but work and learning some basics on archery have had me away from the 'puter....

Lemme tell ya, it takes quite a while to go through 30pages!!  I've reviewed the plan, (which if the state is implementing software, you can consider is already a done deal) and from a purely statistical perspective everyone loses..  The problem I see (and this has already been said many times) is that the stats look great (provided everyone stays in their existing bucket) unless trophy hunters start applying with meat hunters and vice versa.

They dump your points in each bucket (the points only help you if you apply), so theoretically by granualizing the different hunts (purely mathematically) the odds do go up.  However, in reality, you can expect more people to be hitting their usual hunts and additional hunts (as back up plans), therfore the total number of participants per bucket increases, but I dont believe the state is increasing the # tags per bucket, so, expect the odds to decrease.

I also don't like that idea that you can get pulled for different tags ( a buck tag and doe tag) but you can only take one.  If you pull the tags, you should be able to harvest.  If the state is so damned anal about everybody only getting one animal, then your name should be "locked" after the first draw to prevent "second drawing".  I agree with the many others, this is waaaay to complicated and doesn't meet the end goal, unless its just generating revenue and noise....

Might be time to change residence.

md

[Wacenturion]

One thing about drawing a buck and a doe tag, and I agree with you, is that the person should be able to harvest both, because the tag quotas are based on the number of animals WDFW expects to harvest using their anticipated success rates and other voodoo management tools.  So if you draw both you should be able to take both, otherwise it's like having one less tag available in WDFW's projected allowable tags....doesn't make sense and screws someone out of a potential tag.

Folks, this is all about money and nothing more.  If truth be known, WDFW doesn't have a clue if this will be better or not as far as your and my opportunity is concerned.  That's the least of their worries.

[Alan K]

If they do implement this, here is the way I think they should handle drawing in the two pools of the same species:

They should make it so that if drawn in both pools you have to choose which tag to 'accept' online within a week or so of the drawing in order to receive it and burn your points.  This way if you were to draw an antlerless and buck/bull tag you could choose which to 'accept' and which to 'decline'.  The benefit would just be that in the event that you do draw both tags, you only burn points in the pool of your choice rather than both.

(A problem with the above would be that some people may not check online in the first week, and may 'snooze and lose' on both permits . . . In that case too bad so sad.  That is a part of the risk for putting into both pools.  Also, there would have to be a certain known date that the state ran the drawing and published results so that applicants know when their one week begins assuming they were drawn in both pools.)

Then of course they would run a second drawing to dispense the tags that people declined or that were under drawn after that one week grace period to accept or decline the permit. In the second drawing you would have to choose only the bull/buck or antlerless pool to apply for to avoid the same problem which resulted from the first drawing.

(The second drawing would have to be run a minimum of three weeks after the first in reality, one week allowing successful applicants from both pools to accept or decline, another week given to the state to publish left over tags on their website, and lastly a week for those unsuccessful in the first drawing to look at what is left and decide whether or not to apply and to do so.)

Makes more sense to me, assuming they will not let a single person harvest two deer or two elk in the same year, though it would decrease draw odds even more by not deterring people from putting in for both when they run the chance of losing points in both pools.

[billythekidrock]

Alan....good to see people thinking out of the box and while I won't discourage anyone from coming up with ideas, I can see a couple issues with the above scenerio.

Like you, I agree that some won't look at the results in time and I also know that a lot of people still don't have internet and many that do have internet don't look online for the results. It would alienate alot of people.

I would not want to have to go through a second drawing for permits. It is hard enough to trust them on the first......or second....third. You get the idea.

----

So what about keeping the categories. Allowing you to only apply for one category a year, but purchase points for all categories every year. You gain points in all that you want to purchase for but only draw for the one you chose in for the year. Still only allow two choices.

[Cougeyes]

So what about keeping the categories. Allowing you to only apply for one category a year, but purchase points for all categories every year. You gain points in all that you want to purchase for but only draw for the one you chose in for the year. Still only allow two choices.

Glad you brought that up, i was going to ask on here if they were going to still allow the ghost points (basically purchasing points like you mentioned), i haven't come across that but i haven't looked hard either.  Being i have 12 deer points for this years draw and can only harvest one deer (unless drawn for a second doe tag) i would rather put in for ghost points for an antlerless draw until i draw my buck permit just so i wouldn't waste the antlerless points. 

[bobcat]

I'm sure they will still have the option of applying just for a point. There's no reason not to, it brings in more money having that option.

[Bob33]

How about this idea: leave the system alone while they work out the details better?

[bobcat]

I agree with that. It would have been very simple to both increase odds and increase revenue. All they had to is increase the cost of an application from $5 to $15, and only allow one choice on each application. Other than that leave it as is. Problem solved.

[billythekidrock]

I agree with that. It would have been very simple to both increase odds and increase revenue. All they had to is increase the cost of an application from $5 to $15, and only allow one choice on each application. Other than that leave it as is. Problem solved.

I agree and would even be ok with $10 for 2 choices. Instant doubling of funds and make the hunters take a hard look at what they really want to apply for.

[Wacenturion]

I agree with that. It would have been very simple to both increase odds and increase revenue. All they had to is increase the cost of an application from $5 to $15, and only allow one choice on each application. Other than that leave it as is. Problem solved.

Could not agree more..............the multiple choices screwed things up to begin with.  My favorite hunt went from approx. 500-600 putting in for 100 permits to almost 2100 putting in for the same 100 permits.  I'd gladly pay more and just have ONE choice.

[SkookumHntr]

I agree with that. It would have been very simple to both increase odds and increase revenue. All they had to is increase the cost of an application from $5 to $15, and only allow one choice on each application. Other than that leave it as is. Problem solved.

-Yep thats the best solution right there!

[Cougeyes]

I would jump on board with that, wouldn't mind paying more for better chance of drawing. I think WDFW could still get their revenue by changing it to $10-15 per application with 1-2 choices only, wish they could see that, but i bet they still give 4 hunt choices.

[Wacenturion]

I would jump on board with that, wouldn't mind paying more for better chance of drawing. I think WDFW could still get their revenue by changing it to $10-15 per application with 1-2 choices only, wish they could see that, but i bet they still give 4 hunt choices.

One choice and one choice only.........the odds don't get better with 2, 3 or 4 as your preferred choice gets additional applications dropped on top of it from people looking for a 2nd, 3rd, or 4th choice............which equates to longer between draws.