The truth about our draw odds

[bobcat]

Just my opinion, but I don't think going to only one choice will make any difference at all in odds. Sure odds will get better for certain hunts, but it will get worse for others, depending on what people choose to apply for. Overall, the odds will stay the same. There's no getting around it- when you have "x" number of people applying for "x" number of permits every year, there's nothing that can be done to make odds any better. It's just like how they went from 4 choices to 2 choices, for the quality hunts. I sure don't see it being any easier to draw most of those hunts.

The reason odds get worse every year IS because of the point system. And the reason why is that it encourages people to apply, every single year. Nobody wants to miss out on a point, they need to stay in the game. If it wasn't for the point system, a lot of people might only apply every other year, or just whenever they remembered to do it, or when they felt they had the time or money to go on a special hunt. Another thing that had decreased odds is the internet and message boards like this one.

Discouraging people from applying is the only thing that will make permits easier to draw. The best way to do that is to increase the cost. Which, I believe they are doing that next year. Quality applications will be double the cost. And, moose, sheep, and goat tags will be $300 instead of $100.

[hughjorgan]

Just my opinion, but I don't think going to only one choice will make any difference at all in odds. Sure odds will get better for certain hunts, but it will get worse for others, depending on what people choose to apply for. Overall, the odds will stay the same. There's no getting around it- when you have "x" number of people applying for "x" number of permits every year, there's nothing that can be done to make odds any better. It's just like how they went from 4 choices to 2 choices, for the quality hunts. I sure don't see it being any easier to draw most of those hunts.

The reason odds get worse every year IS because of the point system. And the reason why is that it encourages people to apply, every single year. Nobody wants to miss out on a point, they need to stay in the game. If it wasn't for the point system, a lot of people might only apply every other year, or just whenever they remembered to do it, or when they felt they had the time or money to go on a special hunt. Another thing that had decreased odds is the internet and message boards like this one.

Discouraging people from applying is the only thing that will make permits easier to draw. The best way to do that is to increase the cost. Which, I believe they are doing that next year. Quality applications will be double the cost. And, moose, sheep, and goat tags will be $300 instead of $100.

Going from 4 choices to 2 increased odds for archery IMO. If it went to 1 choice it would increase the odds that much more.

If you rifle hunt you are screwed because they screwed that up big time. They need to make it so people only can choose one category rather than applying for a cow tag, quality elk tag and a bull tag.

[bobcat]

Going from 4 choices to 2 increased odds for archery IMO. If it went to 1 choice it would increase the odds that much more.

If you rifle hunt you are screwed because they screwed that up big time. They need to make it so people only can choose one category rather than applying for a cow tag, quality elk tag and a bull tag.

How is it possible? I really don't understand how odds can get better when the number of permits stays the same and the number of people applying for those permits stays the same.   

I agree people should have to choose just one category per species to apply in. 

[hughjorgan]

Going from 4 choices to 2 increased odds for archery IMO. If it went to 1 choice it would increase the odds that much more.

If you rifle hunt you are screwed because they screwed that up big time. They need to make it so people only can choose one category rather than applying for a cow tag, quality elk tag and a bull tag.

How is it possible? I really don't understand how odds can get better when the number of permits stays the same and the number of people applying for those permits stays the same.   

I agree people should have to choose just one category per species to apply in. 

Well the number of permits allocated each year is going to vary due to biologists recommendations and they are down from a few years ago in some units that I have applied for but in some units they have stayed relatively stable. By limiting the choices to two the number of applicants in certain GMUs has gone down significantly. Less applicants means and about the same amount of tags from year to year means better odds. It doesn't hold true to every GMU. Keep in mind I am talking about archery elk in central Wa is what I am basing my observation off.

[Little Dave]

I'm gonna push legislation to pass points on to my heirs, maybe they will draw,lol

Buy a puppy and license it with the county with the name "January 1, 1972."  It's kind of a strange name, but all of your heirs will then be born before January 1, 1972 and you can start racking up points for them.

[shanevg]

Going from 4 to 1 choice can only increase draw odds. Think of the OIL tags. Right now the total number of applicants is how many people applied for each given hunt. Since most people use all 4 choices, most people are counted 4 times. If you added up the total number of API ants for every single goat tag you would probably have roughly 4 times the number of total applicants. If you changed it to one choice only you would roughly cut the number of applicants by 25%. Of course the top hunts would still be the most applied for hunts, but some of the less popular hunts would see significantly increased draw odds.

I would like to see the state go so far as saying you can only actually aly for one OIL tag and one category type (quality, doe, second deer, etc) only for deer and elk. Still allow everyone to apply points only in any category the wish just cut down the total number of applicants. At this poor, anything to increase draw odds while still maintaining opportunity formhunters and income for WDFW would be amgood thing.

[trophyhunt]

I checked out all the numbers on the wdfw web on elk special permits and now I'm seriously depressed. I understand that there is more people applying with 1 to 7 points than people with 8 to 16 but it just sucks to see more of the lower point people drawing.  They need to change some *censored* up... I'm sure I'll get a stop crying response but this system truly sucks.  I like what someone else said earlier, we should be like Idaho with no points!  The same odds everyear.

[bobcat]

Shane,

I understand it APPEARS to improve odds, but does it really? If you think about it in more basic terms- odds are number of overall permits divided by overall number of people applying for those permits. It shouldn't make a difference how many each person applies for. Yes, the least popular hunts (if there is one) may become easier to draw. But the most popular hunts, should then in turn become harder to draw. Just the way I see it. I've heard the same thing for many years, that decreasing the number of choices will increase odds, but I just don't see it working that way.

Still, I wouldn't have a problem with them only allowing one choice. If nothing else, it would at least make it much easier for us to calculate odds of drawing.

What would really help would be to only allow a person to apply for one species per year.   

[bobcat]

I like what someone else said earlier, we should be like Idaho with no points!  The same odds everyear.

I agree. Idaho has the perfect point system- NONE!

[GoldTip]

There is no "perfect" system, trust me.  If it went to the Idaho system with no points, people would still be bellyaching cuz they've never drawn an OIL tag and others have drawn all three.   If you leave it like it is, people will bellyache cuz they still haven't drawn with 27 bajillion points and some 8 year old drew on his first application.  Increase the COST of applying to lower the number of applicants and improve draw odds and revenue, and everyone will scream that it's becoming a rich mans game. 

There is just no "perfect" system, but in this state with high hunter numbers and low number of quality animal tags or OIL tags, the only way they can improve the system is to decrease the number of applicants in the pool.  There are two ways to do this and they should do both imho.  They should go to a every other year system much like Hilltop suggested, and they need to increase the cost to apply.  This would decrease the number of people playing the "special permit" game substantially and increase the odds of drawing, but everyone still gets to hunt each year, maybe not a special unit or elk every year, or deer every year, but everyone still gets to hunt.  There are just too many people in this state and too few animals.

[NRA4LIFE]

There are just too many people in this state and too few animals.

Couldn't have said it any better.

[FWilliams]

There is no "perfect" system, trust me.  If it went to the Idaho system with no points, people would still be bellyaching cuz they've never drawn an OIL tag and others have drawn all three.   If you leave it like it is, people will bellyache cuz they still haven't drawn with 27 bajillion points and some 8 year old drew on his first application.  Increase the COST of applying to lower the number of applicants and improve draw odds and revenue, and everyone will scream that it's becoming a rich mans game. 

There is just no "perfect" system, but in this state with high hunter numbers and low number of quality animal tags or OIL tags, the only way they can improve the system is to decrease the number of applicants in the pool.  There are two ways to do this and they should do both imho.  They should go to a every other year system much like Hilltop suggested, and they need to increase the cost to apply.  This would decrease the number of people playing the "special permit" game substantially and increase the odds of drawing, but everyone still gets to hunt each year, maybe not a special unit or elk every year, or deer every year, but everyone still gets to hunt.  There are just too many people in this state and too few animals.

well said.

[shanevg]

Shane,

I understand it APPEARS to improve odds, but does it really? If you think about it in more basic terms- odds are number of overall permits divided by overall number of people applying for those permits. It shouldn't make a difference how many each person applies for. Yes, the least popular hunts (if there is one) may become easier to draw. But the most popular hunts, should then in turn become harder to draw. Just the way I see it. I've heard the same thing for many years, that decreasing the number of choices will increase odds, but I just don't see it working that way.

Still, I wouldn't have a problem with them only allowing one choice. If nothing else, it would at least make it much easier for us to calculate odds of drawing.

What would really help would be to only allow a person to apply for one species per year.   

Ultimately decreasing the number of choices doesn't do a whole lot to overall odds but it would dramatically increase odds on the less popular hunts like Dillard Creek for goat or Hangman for moose.

The best option is make people choose one species/category that they can actually apply for every year while still allowing them to apply for points in every category. Hat way hunters won't feel conned out of their points, WDFW gets their revenue, and number of applicants for a given species would dramatically increase.

[Romulus]

I have thought way to much about how to change the system and keep revenue close to what it is. If it takes dropped revenue to get better odds it will never happen. I think it is fairly simple. The application fee needs to be higher based on the higher demand for the specific category. Doe, cow, type hunts could remain at $6 and the number of applicants would probably stay the same and you could use your regular tag. Bull and Buck permit applicants could be around $15 or whatever amount needed for the increase in fee to create the same revenue. (Example if there were 10000 guys applying for bull tags at $6 a pop at $15 per application you would only need 4000 applicants and this category would not lose revenue. Trophy bull and buck could go to $30 and OIL could be $50 this would increase odds for those who really care and revenues would stay the same. People will b*tch but odds would improve across the board.

[dreamingbig]

It is obvious and it has been said before BUT this system is all about MONEY.  Nothing more than that.  They don't really care about whether or not you draw a tag.  More applications you purchase x number of years you don't draw the more revenue they get.

That said, deadline is today to submit and purchase.  Open that checkbook!